Oral Answers to Questions

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Police Patrols

Nicholas Winterton: What plans she has to increase the proportion of working time that police officers spend on patrol.

Jacqui Smith: Since April, there has been a neighbourhood policing team in every area. Investment in more officers and police community support officers and in new technology such as mobile data devices, and the implementation of Sir Ronnie Flanagan's recommendations to reduce bureaucracy further, are ensuring an even more visible and reassuring police presence across the country.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that reply. Is she aware that last year police officers spent the equivalent of 25 years filling in controversial stop forms? I hope that she will comment on that statistic. Is she also aware that the latest figures show that patrol officers are so burdened by form filling and paperwork that they are forced to spend exactly the same amount of time on paperwork in an office as they do out on patrol? Should that not be stopped? We want the police on the beat, doing the job that the public expect them to do.

Jacqui Smith: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman's last comment. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that the most recent figures suggest that officer time on front-line duties has increased in Cheshire. He referred to the stop and account form; as he knows, I have agreed with Sir Ronnie Flanagan that that form will be scrapped.

Denis MacShane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those driving on to the main roundabout at Rotherham can see a big sign saying "1,200 fewer crimes than last year"? I do not know whether the police or the council put it up, but that is cheerful news. There are a lot more police uniforms on the street and there is a dynamic, younger leadership in the town. As the leader in  The Times said well today, such news contrasts with the depiction of Britain as a broken, crime-ridden society where nobody dare walk the streets. The Leader of the Opposition is doing grave damage to our nation.

Jacqui Smith: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Police forces and their partners throughout the country are doing sterling work in helping to bring down crime. That work needs to be recognised, to build confidence in our communities. He is right on another point. Those who say such things about Britain do a disservice to this country and to the efforts of the many police officers, community organisations and others who are working hard to bring crime down even further.

James Clappison: Among other things, we need more police patrols to detect knife crime. However, do not police patrols and detection need to be backed up by effective penalties? On 4 August, new magistrates courts sentencing guidelines will deem that a fine is an adequate sentence for possessing a knife. Will Ministers seek the withdrawal of those flawed and inadequate guidelines? If Ministers themselves express no confidence in the guidelines, how can the public have any confidence in—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Jacqui Smith: The sentencing guidelines make it clear, as just the new Lord Chief Justice Sir Igor Judge has done, that knife crime is a serious crime that in many cases should result in custody. Of course, someone who is convicted is now three times more likely to end up in custody for possession of a knife and more likely to receive a longer custodial sentence. We are taking tougher action, both on sentences and on making sure that people are caught for possession or use of knives in the first place.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will my right hon. Friend have further discussions with the Secretary of State for Transport with a view to ending the disparity of provision between Home Office forces and the British Transport police? There is a disparity of provision among railway lines and stations. Sometimes, the Home Office forces cover railway stations but the British Transport police do not. There is not a comprehensive, coherent approach to the issue. I urge her to look at it again and probe, and not to be fobbed off by chief constables. The provision is inadequate and patchy.

Jacqui Smith: We certainly talk frequently, and we talk to ministerial colleagues. The BTP are working hard—particularly, as my hon. Friend says, in London, alongside the Metropolitan police—to make sure that there is proper coverage and security in our transport system. My hon. Friend is right to say that we always need to keep the issue under review. We need to make sure that police forces talk to each other about how they can best keep the travelling public safe.

David Ruffley: Home Office figures show that in the past three years the proportion of officer time spent on patrol has fallen from the already low 19.1 per cent. to 17.1 per cent. Does the Secretary of State think that that has in any way contributed to rising knife crime?

Jacqui Smith: No, I do not. As I emphasised to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), the figures have identified a reduction in the time being spent on paperwork. There is investment in new technology—for example, the £50 million that is being turned into 10,000 mobile data devices to enable police officers to stay out on the streets instead of having to return to the police station. The additional number of police officers, supported by police community support officers and other staff, means that we have a more visible, more reassuring police force than we have had before and that police officers are able to spend their time doing the things that make a difference to the public. I commend them for their efforts in doing that.

Jeff Ennis: The Home Secretary said that some police forces are now making use of hand-held devices to keep bobbies on the beat. What impact are those trials having on the issue?

Jacqui Smith: We are in relatively early days in terms of spending the £50 million and translating it into the 10,000 hand-held devices. When I speak to police officers who are using the devices, they say that they are helping them to get information more quickly about people whom they are stopping. Information can be entered there and then, which means that they do not have to return to the station. That means that there is more efficiency in catching and tracking people whom the police might be stopping in the streets and gives more time for them to be visibly out on patrol. That is why the devices are being welcomed. This is investment that the Government have been willing to put into ensuring that our police services have all the tools that they need to protect the public.

Alcohol-induced Crime

Adam Holloway: What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of measures to combat alcohol-induced crime.

David Evennett: What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of measures to combat alcohol-induced crime.

Vernon Coaker: The Government have made a number of such assessments, most recently the assessment of the impact of the Licensing Act 2003 on levels of crime and disorder, which shows that the overall volume of incidents involving crime and disorder remains unchanged, while there were signs that crimes involving serious violence may have reduced.

Adam Holloway: What difference do these measures make if so-called low-level antisocial behaviour, including children drinking, is often now under the police radar?

Vernon Coaker: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, if one looks at what police forces across the country are doing, one cannot say that tackling under-age drinking is below the police radar. In fact, many police forces are working with local authorities and others and taking relavent action to combat the serious issue of children drinking in public. Indeed, he will have seen the youth alcohol action plan, which details further measures that the Government intend to take with regard to this issue.

David Evennett: The Government argued in 2005 that the Licensing Act 2003 gave police
	"unprecedented powers to crack down on alcohol-fuelled violence".
	Given that the Home Office figures show that alcohol-related violence has increased by a quarter during the hours between 3 am and 6 am, does the Minister believe that the Act is failing in one of its key objectives?

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman selects the statistics that he uses very carefully. In quoting from that report, I wonder why he did not quote the fact that serious violent crime fell by 10 per cent. at all times and by 5 per cent. between 6 pm and 6 am. If he is asking me whether I want the powers in the Act to be used more robustly and widely, I agree with that view. The powers are there to shut places that are selling to the under-aged or are associated with disorder, and it is fair to say that we would all like them to be used more than they are at the present time.

David Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not consider the proposal that is being discussed in the north of Scotland whereby people under the age of 21 should not be allowed to buy alcohol from grocers? Surely the answer to the question is that if soldiers were able to come back from a war but unable to buy a drink in a grocer's shop, that would be absolutely outrageous. This should be dealt with by the existing licensing boards, which should ensure that no one is allowed to buy drink under age and that those who make such sales should have their licences taken away.

Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have no intention anywhere where we have powers of changing anything to do with the age at which people are entitled to drink, namely 18. He makes that point that we would all make: we want the people who break the law to be targeted, whether it be the retailers who sell to the under-aged or individuals who use alcohol as an excuse for violence or disorder. The priority for all of us should be to target the issue, not to try to come up with other laws that impact on the law-abiding majority as well.

Helen Jones: My hon. Friend will remember that when we debated this matter in Westminster Hall, we touched on the role of the major supermarkets and other retailers in selling discounted alcohol. While the police in Warrington are taking a proactive stance in cracking down on alcohol-related crime, many people are drunk before they go out for the evening on cheap alcohol obtained from supermarkets. Has he had any further discussions with the supermarkets on the matter?

Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We have had discussions with supermarkets and with colleagues across Government on what we do about the issue of "pre-loading"—using cheap beer and spirits from supermarkets to avoid the expense of going out. It is a serious issue, and we are having discussions on what to do about it. We are waiting for a review led by the Department of Health on prices and promotions; when it comes forward, we will take the appropriate action.

Andrew Robathan: "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" was a great new Labour slogan, but it does not seem that the Government have been very tough on alcohol-fuelled crime. Has the Minister seen the comments of Sir Alan Steer, Government adviser and headmaster, who said today that alcohol is more of a problem in schools than drugs, and that alcohol is driving the increase in knife crime? What has the Minister got to say to that, and could he explain the shambolic position of the Government, announced today and yesterday, on knife crime?

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman quoted Sir Alan Steer, so he should have found that Sir Alan also said that the vast majority of young people in our schools are well behaved. That gives me the chance to say that whatever we say about the minority of young people who cause disorder on our streets, the majority of young people are decent. The hon. Gentleman talks about what happens in schools, and alcohol is an issue there. As someone who taught adult education in school, I say to him that we should ask not why alcohol education does not take place in schools, because it does, but what effective alcohol education is. In other words, what sort of education could take place in schools that would make a real difference? As to his remarks about—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Kelvin Hopkins: Has my hon. Friend looked at stricter controls on alcohol consumption in other countries, and the effects of those controls? In the United States of America, the minimum age for drinking is much higher than in Britain, and street disorder is much lower. Would he look seriously at that possibility?

Vernon Coaker: We are looking at the possibility of raising the legal age for drinkers, but we very much agree with the points of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Hamilton). The issue is to tackle associated problems with respect to alcohol, whether they involve retailers selling to those who are under age, or those who use alcohol as an excuse for violence or disorder. We need to tackle those problems. I think that the law is right; we need to ensure that we do better on the implementation of the law.

James Brokenshire: Increasingly, drunk and disorderly offences are being dealt with by fixed penalty tickets, with the pilot to extend penalty notices to children aged between 10 and 15 having been completed, according to the Government, in July 2006. But despite the fact that it was said that this scheme would not be adopted until the pilot had been evaluated, three of the police forces involved are still issuing penalty tickets to children because, in the words of one of them,
	"instruction from the Home Office to cease has not been received".
	Can the Minister confirm whether this pilot has finished, and whether the 6,000 tickets given to children in the past two years have been issued validly?

Vernon Coaker: Yes, they have been issued validly, and we are currently evaluating the pilots that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The use of penalty tickets is an effective, low-level and considered way of dealing with the sorts of disorder—alcohol-related or not—that he mentions. Far from being bureaucratic, it saves police time and keeps them on the streets.

Compulsory DNA Database

Gordon Prentice: If she will estimate the cost of setting up a compulsory DNA database with samples taken from every UK resident.

Meg Hillier: Taking DNA from all permanent residents of the UK would mean sampling at least 56 million people. The laboratory costs of processing that alone would be more than £1 billion, without even adding the costs to the police of running a larger database. The Home Office and the Government have no plans to introduce a compulsory DNA database.

Gordon Prentice: That is cheaper than ID cards. Am I the only Labour Member who thinks it is scandalous that the DNA of innocent people can be held on the DNA database? Why do not Ministers follow the logic of their position, regardless of the cost, and ask for swabs from every individual in the land and see what reaction it generates?

Meg Hillier: I would not want to characterise my hon. Friend's contributions in the House, but the phrase "regardless of cost" says quite a great deal. Ministers have to balance cost with practical reality. I stress that the fact that someone is on the database does not mean that they have a criminal record and does not confer any disadvantage or slight on the individual. The fact that someone is on the database comes to light only if a DNA sample is recovered from a crime scene.

Douglas Hogg: May I support what the hon. Member for Pendle (Gordon Prentice) just said? As one who practises in the criminal courts I know that DNA is one of the most important deterrents as well as being one of the detective instruments. It is perfectly true that there are serious issues about cost and practicality, and they must be reflected upon, as must the civil liberties argument, but I hope that the Minister will not automatically shut down the argument; there is more merit in it than she allows.

Meg Hillier: One of the groups established shortly after I began this job just over a year ago was the DNA ethics group. It will publish its annual report next week and I look forward to using it and other issues, including questions in the House, to have a further debate about the importance of DNA in our criminal justice system.

Russell Brown: Can the Minister tell the House how many crimes would have gone unsolved if the DNA of those arrested but not charged had not been retained on the database?

Meg Hillier: There would have been a number of cases where people were arrested but not proceeded against. Matches in crime scenes since December 2005 alone reveal more than 3,000 offences, including 37 murders, 16 attempted murders and 90 rapes.

Damian Green: It is significant that the Minister's first defence of this policy was based on cost, suggesting that, in principle, she would be quite happy to take DNA swabs from everyone in this country. The problem with the DNA database is that thousands of completely innocent people are on it, including 100,000 under-18s, yet thousands more who have committed serious crimes are not on it. Will she commit the Government to doing much better to ensure that the DNA of those most likely to commit crimes is captured? Otherwise it will continue to appear that the Government are interested more in blanket surveillance than in protecting the public.

Meg Hillier: I cannot quite believe the torrent of misinformation from the hon. Gentleman. Let us be clear: more than 87 per cent. of under-18s who had their DNA taken were charged, convicted, cautioned or given a final warning, and only 12.8 per cent. were not. That reflects the reality with regard to under-18s. Other countries are looking closely at Britain's protocols and processes. The US Department of Justice has conducted research into the British system and speaks of the "success of this strategy". The hon. Gentleman massively twisted my words about costs. It is right that we balance cost, but there is no Government policy for a compulsory DNA database.

Domestic Violence Courts

Phyllis Starkey: If she will make a statement on the introduction of specialist domestic violence courts.

Vernon Coaker: The tackling violence action plan committed the Government to doubling the number of specialist domestic violence courts to 128 by 2011. In April this year, the number accredited by the cross-government criminal justice system national programme had increased to 98, with further expansion planned later this year.

Phyllis Starkey: I am pleased that one of the special courts is in Milton Keynes, because dealing with domestic violence is a high priority for the community safety partnership in Milton Keynes. However, I should like to deal with what is available for individuals who may have committed acts of domestic violence, but have not been charged by the police or convicted, and who may wish to undergo voluntary counselling or training to help them deal with their offending behaviour. Relate Milton Keynes is developing such courses. Does my hon. Friend think that the community safety partnerships should consider funding such courses?

Vernon Coaker: The idea of perpetrators voluntarily coming forward to seek help for their problem is an excellent one, and I would certainly encourage the CSP in Milton Keynes to support that initiative. My hon. Friend might also like to know that the Home Office part-funds the Respect phone line, which gives perpetrators the opportunity to phone in and seek advice prior to any charging or conviction that may occur. That is an important area of work, and we would encourage local authorities and voluntary organisations, not only in Milton Keynes but throughout the country, to look at it.

Mike Hancock: I welcome the suggestion that further work be done on domestic violence courts, but will the Minister also consider a domestic violence court for those dealing with immigration matters? A number of women who have come to this country for partnership and marriage, but who have been subjected to domestic violence and other abuse, have subsequently had their appeals turned down, yet without the domestic violence element being taken into consideration. Such women are simply abandoned to the system, which takes no account whatever of the abuse that they have suffered during their time in this country.

Vernon Coaker: If that is a serious problem, I will look into it, but my understanding from the sorts of comments that the hon. Gentleman has made was that it would be taken into account. However, I will have a look at the point that he makes and ensure that if there is a problem with respect to it, it is taken into account.

Madeleine Moon: We know that a woman who suffers from domestic violence will often have been abused more than 30 times before she makes a complaint or the problem ever reaches court. Under the policy in Tasmania, as soon as the police are notified of an incident of domestic violence, the perpetrator is removed from the home until the case reaches court, and there is training and provision for anger management. Is that something that my hon. Friend has looked at?

Vernon Coaker: We have looked at a range of measures that we should adopt with respect to perpetrators, in order to try to remove them from the scene of their domestic violence and protect the victim. Of course, the most important thing is to try to ensure that victims come forward, because we know that domestic violence is a crime that takes place behind closed doors. One of the most significant problems is giving victims the confidence to come forward and report incident to the police, and to believe that they will be sympathetically dealt with. However, the suggestion that my hon. Friend makes is another one that we can look at.

Community Police Officers (Halifax)

Linda Riordan: How many community police officers there are in Halifax; and if she will make a statement.

Tony McNulty: There are 381 police officers working in the Calderdale basic command unit, which covers Halifax. Of those, 12 police sergeants, 68 police constables and 52 police community support officers operate in the four neighbourhood policing teams that serve the same area.

Linda Riordan: I congratulate my local police force on its ambitious initiatives to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour by rotating the officers' shift patterns to increase the amount of time available to serve the local community. However, will the Minister tell me what plans are in place to increase the number of officers, as opposed to the time that they work?

Tony McNulty: As I have said on many other occasions, we think that the settled number of around 140,000 police officers and 16,000 PCSOs is about right for England and Wales. Our task now, as others have intimated during these questions, is to get those officers, supported by the PCSOs, out on the streets and policing far more readily than they have up to now. That is what drives me and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Police Service (Public Accountability)

Mark Harper: What recent representations she has received on improving the public accountability of the police service.

Jacqui Smith: Following the reviews of policing and community safety by Sir Ronnie Flanagan and Louise Casey, I have received representations from the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities, among others, on many issues, including police accountability. I intend to publish a Green Paper that will set out, among other reforms, proposals to provide the public with a clear and powerful voice in police decision making through directly elected members of police authorities.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that answer. I was dispirited to see from leaks in the papers about the forthcoming Green Paper that the Government were once again trying to put police force mergers back on the agenda. We battled hard in the south-west to see them off last year and we were ably led by our chief constable, Tim Brain. I hope that the Home Secretary will take the opportunity today to say that the Government have no intention, whether directly or through funding mechanisms, to force such proposals through. She might also take the opportunity to congratulate our chief constable in Gloucestershire on the recent award of his OBE.

Jacqui Smith: I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to congratulate Chief Constable Brain on the award of his OBE. I am sure that it is well deserved, not least because the chief constable struggled extremely effectively with the impact of the floods a year ago. He also serves us well as a very effective lead on finance at the Association of Chief Police Officers.
	I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he is looking for with respect to mergers. It is not our intention—in the Green Paper or anywhere else—to force through mergers. Of course, that does not, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing said, mean that we would not support forces that came to us with plans for voluntary mergers.

Brian Jenkins: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the work done by people such as Inspector Ian Coxhead in Tamworth in leading neighbourhood teams. Inspector Coxhead regularly meets members of the public at the police and community trust partnerships and he takes accountability very seriously, because it meets real people's real concerns on a day-to-day basis. Is not that model of police accountability not the one that we should adopt? It takes these issues upwards, in contrast to the downward model, which has failed for so many years.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I pay tribute to the police officer he was talking about. Increasingly, as we have neighbourhood policing teams in every community, we also have regular Police and Communities Together meetings. There are also other ways in which local people can feed their priorities into the work of local policing teams, and the success of that can be reflected back to them. I want us to build on that approach even further. We will also want to say more in the policing Green Paper about the good practice that my hon. Friend referred to.

Graham Stuart: Is it not clear that only directly elected police commissioners can give us the transparency and accountability that policing in this country needs? Is it not also clear that police authorities—beefed up and given additional resources, including perhaps a couple of elected members—will not provide the transparency that people in the East Riding and throughout the country demand from their police forces?

Jacqui Smith: No, I do not believe that it is clear that one elected representative who is distant from their local community is the best way to achieve the visible and responsive policing that we want.

Anne Snelgrove: Will my right hon. Friend reject the policy of making police into politicians? Some Opposition Members love calling unnecessary and expensive by-elections, but does she agree that public accountability is much better served by seeing police on the beat, with good funding and leadership from the Government, not by gimmicks?

Jacqui Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend, although I look forward to welcoming back friends who have been absent over the past month or so. My hon. Friend makes an important point. Answerability and accountability start at the neighbourhood; they start with the investment that the Government have put in and the reform that police forces have introduced to deliver neighbourhood policing teams in every community that have the ability, through local meetings and talking directly to members of the public, to allow local people's priorities to be fed into what happens locally. That is supported by the proposals that we will put forward in the Green Paper to enable directly elected voices on police authorities to make sure that local priorities can also be reflected at a strategic level in each police force.

Edward Timpson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the recent experience of one of my constituents in Crewe, whose complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission has been bounced from one case officer to another and has suffocated under the weight of bureaucracy, is a cause for concern? Would it not be sensible to assign any complaint to one office and one case officer to ensure that such things are not repeated and such cases are not lost under the weight of bureaucracy? If we did that, the process would become more democratic and the police would become more accountable.

Jacqui Smith: If I understand the hon. Gentleman rightly, he is talking about a complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. If he has not already taken up his concern with the chief executive, I would be perfectly willing to do so for him.

Gurkhas

Bob Russell: What recent consideration she has given to granting leave to remain in the UK to former Gurkha soldiers who left the British Army before 1997.

Liam Byrne: The Government fully recognise the proud tradition of loyal service that the Gurkhas have given over the past 200 years. Any Gurkha who has completed at least four years' service in the British Army and was discharged on or after 1 July 1997 is able to apply for permanent residence within two years of their discharge. Applications from Gurkhas discharged before 1 July 1997 are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Bob Russell: The Government, having accepted the principle that former Gurkhas who left after 1997 should be allowed to remain in the UK, should take this small further step, which would be a giant step for the Gurkhas concerned. There is a lot of affection for the Gurkhas, so a small gesture, with support across the House and across the country, would be greatly appreciated by many people.

Liam Byrne: I think the whole House would empathise with the sentiments underlying the hon. Gentleman's question. As I said, however, after 1997 any Gurkha who has served for four years is able to apply for permanent residence, but the year of 1997 remains central to the debate. It was, of course, after the handover of Hong Kong in 1997 that Gurkhas could anticipate a period of service in the UK; before 1997, that was extremely unlikely, so the difference in approach remains important. We are using 1997 as a dividing line, but we are taking a more nuanced approach, involving consideration of individual circumstances—including ties to the UK, but also the contribution to this country—in respect of Gurkhas who retired from the armed forces before the handover of Hong Kong.

Violent Crime

David Taylor: How many violent crimes were recorded in England in (a) 1987, (b) 1997 and (c) 2007.

Vernon Coaker: The figures are not directly comparable as there have been major changes in the way violent crime is recorded. The term "violence against the person" rather than "violent crime" is now used. There were 132,942 offences recorded by the police in England in 1987; 233,441 offences in 1997; and 976,638 offences in 2006-07.

David Taylor: Despite the disgraceful and dishonest millionaire-funded Tory leaflets going out in marginal seats stating that violent crime has doubled under Labour, the British crime survey suggests that it has come down by a third since 1997 and that knives were used in an unchanged 8 per cent. of cases. Will the Minister tell us what he plans to do with teenagers in the soulless wastes of this city who carry knives out of fear and desperation or because they believe that it generates respect, when all that it produces is a tragic reduction in the average age of homicide victims?

Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend is right to point to the British crime survey figures, which show a reduction in violent crime of more than a third. Notwithstanding that fact, what we are doing in respect of violent crime in London and elsewhere is to ensure that we have a tough enforcement approach in which we support the police and that we have prevention and diversion schemes alongside it. We know that if we are going to solve this problem, it is not just a matter of increasing the sentences available to the authorities and tough enforcement of the law, but of working with communities. As my hon. Friend points out, it is also about trying to change the culture among some young people who seem to find knife-carrying acceptable.

Bob Spink: Does the Minister recall the "knives or lives" petition signed by 25,000 people and calling for tougher sentences, which I presented to the House last year? Will he accept the congratulations of the mothers who organised that petition on the action that his Government are going to take to toughen sentences?

Vernon Coaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. I remember the petition that he presented, and he is quite right to highlight the tougher sentences made available to the courts. The maximum sentence available for possession has increased from two to four years and changes in the presumption to prosecute have been made, as it has been extended to 16 and 17-year-olds. It is quite right to say that tough enforcement of the law is one part of the solution to the problem of knife and other violent crimes, as people have to be made to realise that there will be consequences to their actions.

Chris Bryant: If three people violently assaulted someone and one of them then pulled a knife, stabbed the person and killed him or her, that person might be found guilty of murder. Because of the rules on complicity, however, the accomplices would almost certainly get away with much lower sentences and a lower-ranking crime. Is it not time we changed the law on homicide and adopted a much tougher approach to complicity?

Vernon Coaker: Of course we must always keep the various laws under review, including those relating to homicide. I am sure that Justice Ministers will give careful consideration to what my hon. Friend has said. Our most important task at the moment is to reduce the rate at which knife crime and other homicides are occurring, which includes tough enforcement of the law, prevention and diversion; but, as I have said, we must also review the existing laws to establish whether they are still appropriate.

Alcohol-related Disorder (Young People)

John Mann: What plans she has for improving engagement with the parents of young people involved in alcohol-related disorder.

Vernon Coaker: The Government recently published their youth alcohol action plan, which sets out a new tiered approach to tackle young people consuming alcohol in public places. All tiers will closely involve parents to prevent an escalation of problems. However, when young people are creating serious problems for their communities, we will also address the behaviour of parents through parenting contracts and parenting orders.

John Mann: I hope that the Minister will pay particular attention to the recommendation of the Bassetlaw young people's alcohol panel, which was presented to the Home Secretary last week. Does he agree that it is vital to take account of the views of young people themselves about how problems such as alcohol and, indeed, knife crime can be solved?

Vernon Coaker: I know that, along with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my hon. Friend has met young people to present his findings. I also had the privilege of meeting young people in his constituency a few months ago to discuss the issues with them. He is right to stress the importance of involving young people in the search for solutions to alcohol-linked and other crimes. The Government are already considering some of the points that they have made, and intend to deal with others. For instance, we strongly support the idea of making parents take more responsibility for their children when they act in antisocial and, indeed, criminal ways. We will take account of the reports from my hon. Friend and the young people in his constituency in determining our policy.

Anne Main: My constituency is experiencing significant problems involving young people drinking alcohol in public places, often hidden in drinks such as orange juice. They obtain their alcohol from small shops and off-licences. Will the Home Secretary consider much tougher penalties for those who dispense alcohol to young people, and bear in mind the fact that the "pile it high, sell it cheap" method of selling alcohol, rather than the existence of licensed premises, is the root of the problem?

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Lady has made an important point. As she will know, we have conducted a number of campaigns against the sale of alcohol to the under-age, involving action against retailers. She will have noted that over the years the proportion of small retailers who fail the test has fallen from about 50 to 15 per cent. However, we are aware that we need to take further action against retailers, and I want all local authorities to use the powers that are available to them.
	No doubt the hon. Lady will support the change in the law to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred recently when we announced the youth alcohol action plan, which includes a new offence of persistent possession of alcohol in public by young people.

Immigration Rules (Students)

Peter Luff: What plans she has to amend the immigration rules in relation to students undertaking temporary work in the UK; and if she will make a statement.

Liam Byrne: The Government's new points system is now being introduced. It replaces some 80 different routes into the United Kingdom with just four. The final stage is the student route, and during the summer I will publish a statement of intent explaining in detail how it and other routes will work.

Peter Luff: The Minister will know that he and I have an honest disagreement on the role of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme in respect of agricultural students coming here to work, which I believe is essential for the future of British growing, but which he does not. May I have the meeting with him or one of his colleagues in the Home Office that I asked for in a letter to the Home Secretary more than a month ago to explore this important question, which I think threatens British food security apart from anything else?

Liam Byrne: I would be happy to have that meeting. As the hon. Gentleman says, we have an honest disagreement about whether, in my words, we should relax immigration control in eastern Europe and make it easier for people from east Europe to enter and work in the UK. I think we should toughen the system so that it is impossible for low-skilled migration to come in from outside the EU, but I recognise that there will be labour market issues that we will need to confront, which is why I would be happy to have that meeting. I do not anticipate restrictions in the student route being so draconian that overseas students cease to be a source of labour for the agricultural industry or others, but perhaps we should schedule that meeting on the back of that statement of intent, when it is published.

Topical Questions

Madeleine Moon: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Jacqui Smith: My Department is responsible for helping people to feel secure in their homes and local communities. Recent fatal incidents highlight the tragedy of knife crime, which we are determined to tackle. That is why I announced the establishment of a new national knife crime programme to focus action in eight police force areas. The work, being led by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Alf Hitchcock, will include stepping up targeted stop-and-search operations, a tough approach to reviewing the licences of bars and clubs where there is violence, working with accident and emergency departments to improve information sharing, and providing knife referral schemes for young people convicted of knife-carrying so that they understand the full consequences of their actions.

Madeleine Moon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but what reassurance can I take back to my constituents in Bridgend that this media-generated plague of knife crime is not necessarily taking place across the UK, but that there are specific areas that have serious problems that the Government and police are tackling while other areas remain relatively safe in respect of knife crime?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she and her constituents can be further reassured by the fact that violence against the person recorded in the Bridgend crime and disorder reduction partnership area fell by 12 per cent. over the last year. It is because we need to focus on those areas where knife crime is a particular issue that I have asked DAC Hitchcock to focus the knife crime programme in those police force areas where we need to make the most difference and where knife crime is, understandably a concern for people both locally and nationally.

David Evennett: The impact of knife crime has been felt all across the country, including in my borough of Bexley where, tragically, there have been three murders involving knives during the course of this year. Is the Secretary of State aware that my constituents feel that her comments at the weekend show that she is rather out of touch with what the public want? What they really want is to have the police on the beat, and for them to be more freed from paperwork and restrictions so that they can spend more time catching the perpetrators of knife crime.

Jacqui Smith: And that is precisely what the hon. Gentleman's constituents are getting with neighbourhood policing teams in every area; the Flanagan review recommendations, which the Government are putting into operation; and more mobile data machines so that the police can stay out on the beat. However, I believe that they also want the investment that the Government have put into providing the knife arches and search wands and other tools for the police to use to collect knives and catch those carrying them. They also want the investment that we have put into sending a very strong message to young people that carrying a knife does not make them safer, but makes them more likely to have that knife used against them or use it against somebody else, with all the tragic consequences that brings. There is not one simple answer to this, which is why we have a wide-ranging strategy to tackle knife crime including, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, ensuring that there are police officers and police community support officers visible on our streets, and I hope he will support the development of neighbourhood policing.

Paul Flynn: Last week, many of my constituents were alarmed at a rumour that had been put out of a secret Government plan to close the local passport office in Newport. I do not ask the Minister to give me information about a configuration that has not yet been completed, but does she agree that spreading rumours of that kind is simply irresponsible, alarmist scaremongering?

Meg Hillier: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I can reassure him that there are no plans to close the Newport passport office.

Dominic Grieve: The Home Secretary trailed in the media on Saturday her plans to force knife offenders to confront victims face to face in hospitals, and the Prime Minister announced them this morning. What prior estimate did the Home Office make of the measure's impact on reoffending rates and of its viability? Is it correct, as is now being trailed on Sky News, that this aspect of the Government's policy has already been abandoned?

Jacqui Smith: No, it is not. May I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman to his role? I hope that he remains in that role, even when others return to this House. What I made clear over the weekend is that I believe, as I said in my first answer to topical questions, that it is important that we develop knife referral schemes that will enable young people caught in possession of knives to face up to the consequences of their actions. Such schemes should include their attendance at weapons awareness workshops, where graphic and detailed information on what happens when someone is stabbed and what the wider consequences are for them and their families, as well as for the victim, the victim's family and the community, are brought home to them. Such schemes could include visits to hospitals, or doctors visiting them so that they can talk to health care professionals, hear graphic details about the impact of knife wounds and better understand what happens when somebody is stabbed. We are not—I have never said that we are—proposing to bring young people into wards to see patients.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the Secretary of State that this is an opportunity for Back Benchers to come in and that a long statement is not required at topical questions? If she wants to make a statement, she can come to the House and make one.

Dominic Grieve: Grateful as I am to the Home Secretary for her remarks, she has not really answered my question, which was very specific. I get the impression that, in fact, she has slipped away from her previous statement on Saturday that in order to make people realise there is nothing glamorous about carrying a knife, knife offenders would be taken into accident and emergency departments in hospitals. I think that she has now abandoned that, but I would be grateful if she would give confirmation. Moreover, if, as I believe, she has abandoned it, what sort of impression will that send out to the public? It will give the impression that the Government are constructing policy in three days and abandoning it in three hours, and that this is gimmickry.

Jacqui Smith: I am sorry, but the hon. and learned Gentleman is just plain wrong. I have made it clear throughout that knife referral projects should bring young people face to face with the consequences—the gruesome injuries that can be caused—of knife crime. Of course, I never said—nor would this be sensible—that young people would be trailed through accident and emergency wards while people are being treated. The point here is whether he agrees with me or not. Should these be the sorts of things that we are developing with the Youth Justice Board? Will he support us when we roll them out in September, or is he more interested in opposition for the sake of opposition?

Sally Keeble: Will my right hon. Friend say what she is doing with other Departments to examine the labelling, promotion and display and pricing of alcohol, in particular the minimum price of a unit, to stop the deep discounting of strong alcoholic drinks, particularly to young people, which is causing such chaos?

Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend has raised this topic on a number of occasions, and I can reassure her that we are examining all the points that she makes. We are awaiting a review that the Department of Health is conducting into pricing and promotion. When that is completed we will examine its conclusions, take into account the points that she and other hon. Members have made, and decide on the appropriate way forward.

Christopher Huhne: The Home Secretary will know that her proposal, which she apparently stands by, to take young offenders to see victims in hospital, is very similar to the US Scared Straight programme, which was found to have increased crime, not reduced it. Does she agree that evidence-based policy is crucial, and that that makes the case for a research unit—perhaps a beefed-up and independent National Policing Improvement Agency—that would evaluate and assess what works to cut crime?

Jacqui Smith: Once again, I make the case that I believe—as does the Youth Justice Board, with which we are working to develop these knife referral projects—that there is value in young people coming face to face with the gruesome consequences of knife crime, including hearing directly from health care professionals, where appropriate. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that that is a good idea, he can say so, but I believe that it is, and that is why we are working to develop it.

Keith Vaz: Although I welcome the thrust of what the Home Secretary has said, I have reservations about her proposals for hospital visits. It would be much better to take perpetrators to prisons to see the effect for them if they continue their behaviour. Will she accept the words of her new police knife crime tsar, Alf Hitchcock, who says it would be much better for the political parties to leave their politics aside when discussing this important issue? Will she convene a meeting with the Opposition parties and other stakeholders to ensure that we produce some long-term solutions to this difficult problem?

Jacqui Smith: May I reiterate my earlier point that we are not proposing to bring young people into wards to meet patients? However, it would be a good idea to bring young people into contact with health professionals, perhaps through visits to hospitals, so that they understand what knives can do to people. My right hon. Friend is right to say that another element of the knife referral project should include young people meeting offenders to find out exactly what it means to be imprisoned, and the possible consequences for the rest of their lives.
	I agree with him: I hope that the knife crime programme will achieve a clear view about the methods that will make the most difference to reducing knife crime, and that we can work together on that. That is what I have always sought to do, and it is a shame that some people are looking for opposition for the sake of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to stop the Secretary of State, but it appears to me as though a statement should be made to the House. I repeat: topical questions are for Back Benchers, and answers should be short and sharp.

Laurence Robertson: Just a few moments ago, I had a meeting with some young people from a school in my constituency and they were horrified to learn that the detection rate for violent crimes against the person is only 51 per cent., even given modern technology. That sends a clear message that half of the people who commit violent crimes will not be caught. What can be done about that situation?

Jacqui Smith: There is much more that we need to do to ensure that we catch people who are responsible for violent crimes, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents would be horrified, as would mine, at the suggestion that scrapping the DNA database or doing away with CCTV cameras would help to catch violent criminals.

Mark Harper: Was the Home Secretary as surprised as I was by the words of Baroness Manningham-Buller in her maiden speech in the House of Lords? She was responsible for the Security Service until just last year and she said:
	"I do not see on a practical basis or on a principled one that these proposals"—
	for 42 days—
	"are in any way workable".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 8 July 2008; Vol. 703, c. 647.]
	Does the Home Secretary therefore think that she should reconsider her proposals?

Jacqui Smith: No, because I have always made it clear that we always listen carefully to those whose responsibility it is to investigate up to the point of charge—the most senior counter-terror police officers in this country. We have listened, for example, to previous heads of MI6, who believe that the policy is an important way we can help to counter terrorism. I have never resiled from the fact that it is a difficult policy to get right. That is why I have sought to find consensus, but I shall continue to do what I think is the right thing for this country's security.

David Winnick: Would it not be sensible for the Cabinet to reconsider the whole issue of the 42 days pre-charge detention? Surely the former director of MI5 cannot be accused of being soft on terrorism. Next time, my right hon. Friend might find it far more difficult to get the proposals through the House of Commons—the Democratic Unionist party might not be around.

Jacqui Smith: It sounds as though I have not yet managed to convince my hon. Friend. As I said, I shall continue to do what I think is right in this House and outside it for the security of the country.

Simon Burns: May I press the Home Secretary further on the answer that she gave my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper)? Does she agree with the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, who said over the weekend that the former head of the security service allegedly lacked experience in the investigation and prosecution aspects of intelligence operations?

Tony McNulty: I am very grateful for the chance to clarify my comments. If at any stage they were interpreted the wrong way to suggest anything other than the greatest respect for Eliza Manningham-Buller and her 33 years of public service, that was not my intention. The simple fact is that the Baroness Manningham-Buller's experience is entirely in the intelligence dimension and not in investigation and prosecution, which is where the 42 days comes in. That is a simple matter of fact and I was not in any way casting aspersions on the huge service that she has given to this country.

Desmond Swayne: Before someone can be dispatched on a hospital visit or even made to attend a weapons awareness workshop, they have to be caught. What is the Home Secretary doing to ensure that police use more robustly the powers to search that they already have?

Jacqui Smith: That is what I am asking Deputy Assistant Commissioner Alf Hitchcock to help to ensure happens in every area. That is why we have invested in, for example, search arches and wands, which are being used increasingly around the country to deter and catch people who carry knives. That is why I personally believe that CCTV cameras, for example, are very helpful in tackling crime.

House of Lords Reform

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on House of Lords Reform. I am also today publishing a White Paper on the subject.
	In my statement to the House on 19 July last year, I said that I would continue to lead cross-party talks on reform of the Lords. Those talks have included Front-Bench representatives of the main parties from both Houses, as well as representatives of the Cross-Bench peers and the bishops. The talks have made good progress and I am most grateful to all those who have served on the group. I pay tribute to them for their constructive contributions and readiness to consider alternative proposals. Our discussions have been much informed by the work of others, including the Public Administration Committee, informal cross-party groups, the Cunningham report and above all the report of the royal commission under the chairmanship of the noble Lord Wakeham.
	The basis for our talks was the outcome of the votes in the House of Commons in March 2007. The House voted then for a wholly elected second Chamber, and for a mainly elected second Chamber and rejected all other alternatives by a large margin. Their lordships took a different view and voted for a fully appointed second Chamber and rejected all other alternatives by a large margin. However, as I said in my statement on 19 July last year, reflecting the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 3 July last, work taking forward House of Lords reform had to be based on the will of the House of Commons, which is the primary Chamber in our legislature. The proposals we make today are consistent with the 2005 manifesto commitments of the three main political parties.
	The White Paper sets out how a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber might be created within a bicameral legislature in which the House of Commons retains primacy. The White Paper reflects the considerable consensus reached in the cross-party talks. Inevitably, we did not reach agreement on all issues. In some instances, those taking part have asked that the White Paper record their difference of view, which of course it does.
	As I indicated to the House in my statement on 19 July last, our intention is that the product of the cross-party talks would be the basis of a
	"package that we would put to the electorate as a manifesto commitment at the next general election and which hopefully the other main parties would include in their manifestos".—[ Official Report, 19 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 450.]
	It has therefore never been the intention to legislate in this Parliament—as I said last year. The White Paper represents a significant step on the road to reform, and is intended to generate further debate and consideration rather than being a blueprint for final reform.
	The White Paper sets out how Members could be elected to a reformed second Chamber from the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. It was a key recommendation of Lord Wakeham's royal commission, and one that has since enjoyed strong consensus within the cross-party group, that Members should serve a single, non-renewable term of three electoral cycles—that is, of between 12 and 15 years. The proposal reflects the proposals in the February 2007 White Paper. Under this system, elections would be held at the same time as those for Members of this House, so as to minimise disruption to the business of Parliament.
	The current House of Lords has more than 700 members. The Government intend that the reformed second Chamber should be significantly smaller, not more than between 400 and 450 members, maybe fewer, and that costs should be similar or reduced. We envisage all members of a reformed second Chamber making a full contribution to its work and we would welcome views on its size. Single, non-renewable terms would help to provide a membership for the second Chamber that continued to be distinct from that of this House and could hence bring an added dimension to the work of Parliament. It is proposed that this be reinforced by the use of large constituencies for elections to the second Chamber.
	I referred earlier to the primacy of this House. Analysis of other countries' arrangements, including that set out in chapter 5 of last year's White Paper, and consideration of our own history shows that primacy does not depend on the fact that this House is elected while the Lords is not, rather that primacy is rooted in the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 and the conventions that govern relations between the two Houses. However, with the introduction of elected Members in the second Chamber, we have to ensure that the mandate of this House, and of the Government it sustains, continues to hold sway. The membership of a reformed second Chamber should be such that it could not challenge that mandate. That is why we saw considerable merit in staggered elections, with a third of Members returned at each election. In that way, the electoral basis of the reformed second Chamber could never, as a whole, be more recent than that of this House.
	The cross-party group considered at some length possible voting systems. The White Paper presents detailed modelling on the possible—I underline possible—effects of each of four electoral systems for elections to a second Chamber. The systems are first past the post, the alternative vote, the single transferable vote and open or semi-open list systems. The Government would welcome views on the choice of system.
	The group considered the powers of a reformed second Chamber. We took the view that it would be wrong to presuppose conflict between this House and the other reformed House. The working relationship between the two Houses currently functions well, and we could see no reason why it should not continue to do so. Creative tension between the Houses can lead to better government, not to an undermining of the primacy of this House. If conflict arose in the future, it would, as now, be for both Houses to devise a way through that conflict. In advance of that, we identified no persuasive case for reducing the powers of a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber.
	Given the Commons votes last March, the White Paper does not take a view between the options, which were voted on in favour, of either a 100 per cent. or an 80 per cent. elected second Chamber, but the White Paper includes detail on a possible 20 per cent. appointed element, should the latter option be chosen. There would then be a statutory appointments commission and published criteria for appointments. Any appointed members would serve for three electoral cycles in the same way as elected Members.
	If the second Chamber became fully elected, there could be no seats appointed or reserved, including for Church of England bishops. But in recognition of the wide and important role played by the Lords Spiritual in the life of the nation and the special constitutional position of the Church, we propose that their representation should continue in a mainly elected House. In that instance, their numbers would not contribute to the 20 per cent. appointed element.
	The White Paper includes proposals on eligibility and on disqualification. Because of the long non-renewable terms for which they would serve, we were attracted to the system discussed in the White Paper of recall ballots for elected members of the second Chamber, with analogous arrangements for any appointed members, but those would apply only after the first of the three parliamentary terms that members would serve. Again, the Government would welcome views on that.
	We also propose that members of a reformed second Chamber should receive salaries, with the Senior Salaries Review Body asked to advise.
	The transition to a reformed second Chamber raises a number of important issues, not least about the future arrangements for existing Members of the Lords. It is those Members who, collectively, enable the Chamber effectively to fulfil its key roles of scrutinising legislation, conducting investigations and holding the Government to account. The Government and, I know, the whole House greatly value the work of the Lords and the contributions of individual Members to it. However, it was made clear in 1999 that the rights of hereditary peers to sit and vote would be removed, as part of the next phase of Lords reform. The Government therefore propose that, following legislation and during the transition to a reformed second Chamber, there should be no further by-elections to fill vacancies for hereditary peers.
	The February 2007 White Paper included a proposal from me that a reformed House should be 50 per cent. elected and 50 per cent. appointed. One of the many merits that I saw in that proposal was that it would have enabled existing life peers to remain for life if they had wished to do so. But that 50:50 proposal was comprehensively rejected by both Houses. The votes in this House for a wholly or 80 per cent. elected House mean that the context for the transition to a reformed second Chamber has changed. There may not be an appointed element in a reformed second Chamber. If there is, it may comprise 90 or many fewer Members.
	A discussion is therefore now required to determine how far the rights of life peers to sit and vote during any transition to a reformed second Chamber should continue. The White Paper sets out three options for managing this transition: first, for all existing life peers to leave in tranches, allied to the three electoral cycles; secondly, for all to leave on the third cycle; and thirdly, to remain as now for life. Again, the Government would welcome views on those options.
	The cross-party group faithfully and assiduously followed the mandate set for it by the Commons in March 2007. We are now keen for there to be a wide-ranging and thorough debate on our proposals. But I hope that all members of the cross-party group share my view that to have got this far on such an important but highly complex issue is a considerable achievement.  [ Interruption. ] I think so, and I am very grateful for the approbation of the House in that respect. As I said in my statement on 19 July, our intention now is to continue to develop the consensus around a comprehensive package for reform of the House of Lords.

Andrew MacKinlay: Switch the lights off and most of them would go.

Jack Straw: Any final package would have to be put to the electorate as a manifesto commitment, including in Thurrock, at the next general election. I hope that we will be able to build on the considerable consensus established already in the cross-party group, to the extent that other parties include similar commitments in their manifestos.
	An effective second Chamber plays an invaluable role in holding the Government to account and in scrutinising legislation. Our belief is that the proposals in the White Paper and those of the group will lead to a more legitimate and strengthened second Chamber. I commend this statement and the White Paper to the House.

Nick Herbert: I thank the Justice Secretary for early sight of his statement and the final White Paper. I commend him on the way in which he has handled discussions in the cross-party group for many months and attempted to steer a course of reform.
	We welcome the White Paper and recognise it as a step forward. As the Justice Secretary said, it is a Government document. Many of the proposals reflect areas of consensus in the cross-party talks, but there are areas of disagreement. Will he accept that the question of the electoral system for any reformed second Chamber is far from settled? We believe that that system should mirror that for this House: a first-past-the-post system, with recognisable constituencies, based on our historic cities and counties. We would strongly resist any move to introduce an electoral system based on proportional representation. Would not simultaneous elections to both Houses involving two different electoral systems be a recipe for confusion?
	At a time of increasing public disquiet about politicians' use of taxpayers' funds, the cost of the second Chamber is bound to be an issue. What plans does the Justice Secretary have to set out the pay, pensions and responsibilities of members of a reformed second Chamber, and the costs of reform as a whole?
	The Justice Secretary says that a reformed second Chamber should be significantly smaller than the existing House of Lords, but is not 400 members too large? We have argued for a second Chamber of between 250 and 300 members, which would be a similar size to the upper houses of France, Italy and Spain. The United States Senate has only 100 members for a population of 300 million people, albeit in a federal system.
	On the subject of a senate, the White Paper notes that the working group reached a "strong consensus" that a reformed second Chamber should be known as the "Senate", yet the Government's proposals do not use that name. Will the Justice Secretary tell us why the Government appear reticent to adopt a name that was agreed by the cross-party group?
	The issue of transition could be highly contentious. The White Paper suggests that life peers could remain members of a reformed second Chamber even after transition was complete. How could reform possibly be considered complete while life peers remained in a second Chamber, perhaps for decades? The White Paper also suggests that the remaining hereditary peers would go at the completion of transition. Does the Justice Secretary accept that given that the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, gave an undertaking that the elected hereditary peers would remain until stage 2 of reform had taken place it would be invidious and inequitable to remove those remaining hereditary peers sitting in the other place as long as the 400 life peers created under Labour continued to sit? While the largest number of Members of this House voted last year for a 100 per cent. elected second Chamber—I was one of them—is it not the case, in view of the contrary position taken by the Lords themselves, that retaining an appointed minority would provide the best hope of consensus?
	We welcome the special place that the Government intend to reserve for the Church of England bishops in a mainly elected, reformed second Chamber. However, does the Justice Secretary agree that retired justices of the supreme court, who would not be appointed to the second Chamber automatically, would make every bit as valuable a contribution to its work as the Lords Spiritual?
	Reform should not be supported unless it strengthens the authority of the second Chamber in holding Governments to account. However, a reformed second Chamber should not seek to compete with this House, which must continue to have primacy. Is it not the case that both Houses of Parliament need strengthening to hold the Executive to account? Does the Justice Secretary agree that the next reform of the Lords should be a democratic one and that we should be wary of any proposals that might cement the current arrangements, especially by allowing an entire second Chamber to be appointed by an unelected quango?
	The White Paper represents the next step after last year's votes in the House for a mainly or wholly elected second Chamber, but is it not clear that the change envisaged is a radical one? It is not so much the reform of the House of Lords as the creation of a new second Chamber. Reform of the Lords has been proposed and attempted for the past 100 years. Will the Secretary of State for Justice indicate when he thinks the proposals will be translated into a Bill? It is right that Members in this House should reflect on and debate the issues carefully. We Opposition Members will continue to seek consensus on a way forward.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman asked me a large number of questions, and I shall try to get through them as rapidly as I can, but first, may I thank him for the courtesy and generosity of his opening remarks? As he said, and as I said, this is a Government White Paper. It is, I think, faithful to what was decided in the cross-party group, both where there was consensus and where there was not. The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct to say that, as the White Paper records, the Conservative party favours a first-past-the-post electoral system, basically based on the old European constituencies. I understand the argument in favour of that, but from a position of total neutrality on the issue, I think that there are stronger arguments in favour of first past the post than those to do with the complexity of the ballot papers. There are other issues, and there is much to be said on the matter.
	The costs clearly depend on the final size agreed on. That runs into issues about transition. It is a self-evident truth that the smaller the size, the lower the costs will be, but for all parties there could be difficulties with transition. We have said that the matters must be discussed. I accept that the longer transition goes on, the more difficult it will be for the issue finally to be agreed. There is a balance between the best and the good, and in future the Houses will have to come to a judgment.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about the name of the senate. What he says is consistent with what is written on page 7 of the White Paper, where the word "Senate" is used. It records the view of the cross-party group, but it goes on to say—this is the Government view—that
	"To avoid a preoccupation with name over function and composition...we use the neutral term 'reformed second chamber' throughout this document",
	but there is no copyright on that term, and others will use whatever name is appropriate.
	On hereditaries, I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, because it is just a fact of life that of the hereditaries that remain, 44 are Conservatives and four are Labour. I have always said that were we to change things, we would have to make arrangements for those existing hereditaries; as I have said publicly, it has never been part of the Government's agenda, or my agenda, gratuitously to disadvantage Conservative party representation in either place, and I have made that very clear.
	The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about retired justices. I agree—this is a personal view—that an appointed minority is the best type of consensus, but let us see. Of course I agree that both Houses need to be strengthened. We should consider how rebellious the Houses have become, compared to how they were in the 1950s, when they were not rebellious at all. This House has been strengthened over the years, and an interesting Hansard Society report about that is coming out tomorrow. He asked about legislation. As I said, it is certainly our intention to bring forward a Bill after the next election, and I look forward to the Opposition parties giving us support by ensuring that they put that in their manifestos, too.

Simon Hughes: First, may I thank the Secretary of State for the statement and for the work on the White Paper? I pay tribute to his commitment to making sure that we move forward together, as far as is possible. Through him, I thank his private office for its assistance, and his officials, who have been extremely helpful. Does he agree that the reality is that there is a coalition of the committed, who are determined that we shall see reform? The process started in 1911—I nearly said, "as you know, Mr. Speaker." I did not mean that; I mean, "as we all know." It would be nonsense if the process were not completed by 2011. The question that the House has to address is not whether, but when, we have a properly democratic second Chamber of the United Kingdom Parliament. That is the issue, and not anything else.
	The Secretary of State heard my colleagues and me make a commitment in the talks and on behalf of our party. We will repeat that commitment in our next election manifesto: it is to make sure that all our MPs vote at the earliest opportunity in the next Parliament for just this sort of reform package. However, if people are to be elected to the second Chamber—it will be called "the Senate", I think—in thirds, for one term only, there is no justified argument that those elected with a party affiliation should not proportionately reflect the public's votes for the parties at the election. That argument is not about this place; we can have that at another time. It is an argument about proper representation down the corridor.
	Will the Secretary of State accept that, like the life peers, the hereditaries have known throughout their service in the House of Lords—many have served it well—that the time would come when their service would end? The only logical position is that all the hereditary peers should go at the beginning of the democratic process and that the life peers should go, at the latest, at the end of the three elections, probably by thirds over the period. In the White Paper, the Government express the preference that we have discussed: that the elections for the second Chamber should take place on the same day as the general election. However, does the Secretary of State agree that there is a strong case for our needing a fixed-term Parliament for the House of Commons and for there to be, at half-time intervals, elections for the second Chamber as well as for the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and for any future devolved Administration in England?
	There has been a debate about the bishops. I hope that the Secretary of State accepts that many of us in the Church—not only the Anglican Church, but the Church generally—believe that the time has come for the Church of England not to be part of the establishment any more. The Church was not part of the establishment at the beginning and it was not intended to be so. Whether there are to be women bishops soon or not—I hope that there will be—the Church must, like anybody else, put its case for representation to the people. It is nonsense to protect one bit of the old House of Lords, but not any other.
	Lastly, does the Secretary of State agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert)? The proposals do not come instead of, but as well as, the reform and democratisation of the Commons. We need a stronger Parliament in this country if the British people are to think that their Governments, of whatever colour and composition, are to be held properly to account in future.

Jack Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I also particularly thank my private office and the officials who have worked extremely hard for a long period on behalf of all members of the working group; I should have done that before.
	To suggest that the process will be completed by 2011 is probably pushing it; however, getting the legislation in by 2011 would be a good target. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the form of elections. He and his party have their view about the timing of the elections; it happens that the Conservatives and the Government have a different one. One of the great things about the cross-party group was that we had to apply our brains to the discussion. Like the Conservative party, I came to the view that it would be best for good governance and the effective role of both Houses if the elections for each House coincided.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about hereditaries. They, as well as life peers, have always known that their time would end. That is true for all of us; we know that our time will end at some stage and the big, existential question is about when. Everybody at the other end of the corridor has certainly been aware that reform has been in the air; it has been since at least 1911, and for many years it has been in the manifestos of the hon. Gentleman's party, my party and, more recently, the Conservative party. That said, there is a human issue about managing the transition.
	The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point that was wholly incorrect, if he does not mind my saying so. He said that the Church of England was not originally part of the establishment. I do not know what Henry VIII had in mind when he broke away from the Church of Rome and created the Church of England. Furthermore, what is still in mind when I go to the palace to administer the new bishops' oaths of homage, about their allegiance and loyalty to the Crown? I am also a communicating Anglican, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I take a different view—I think that the established Church plays an important part in the life of our nation. That is not a party point of view.
	Of course, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that this is not a zero sum game as between the other place and this House. It is in the interests of democracy and of good government that both Houses should continue to be strengthened.

Gerald Kaufman: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his courtesy in sending me an advance copy of the White Paper and for his kind words about my work on the royal commission? Having read the White Paper, I congratulate him on producing a masterpiece of imprecision, vacillation and obfuscation that cannot possibly lead to meaningful legislation—a consequence entirely to be desired.

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend is a very old friend. When he starts his remarks with a compliment I always know that there is something coming that will be less than complimentary, and I was not disappointed on this occasion. He played an important role in the Wakeham royal commission. He obviously disagrees with the White Paper, but he is wrong to call it imprecise or obfuscatory. It is neither; it merely comes to a conclusion that is rather different from his conclusions.

Patrick Cormack: In echoing the wise and perceptive comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), may I ask the Lord High Chancellor to acknowledge that when the votes took place in this House last year a significant majority of Conservative Members voted against 80:20 and a larger number voted against 100 per cent? On his side of the House, there was a significant majority against 80:20—

Chris Bryant: Not true.

Patrick Cormack: There was a majority against 80:20, and the vote for 100 per cent. was caused by a tactical switch by a number of Members, led by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), who is nodding vigorously. That is no basis on which a cosy coterie of cross-party leading Front Benchers can saddle the rest of the House of Commons with the most ridiculous dog's breakfast that I have seen in many a long year.

Jack Straw: Those of us who take seriously the way we vote have to be bound by the consequences of our votes. We cannot have a situation whereby Members vote in one Lobby and then say that they actually meant to vote in the other Lobby; indeed, that would be the road to complete disaster. Moreover, I do not remember the hon. Gentleman ever saying, when he was forced through the Lobby in support of his Government, that he had not really meant to vote for, say, the poll tax or another objectionable piece of legislation. When the votes took place, there was quite a substantial majority for 80:20 and a very significant majority for 100 per cent. All the other alternatives were defeated.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am relieved to hear from the Secretary of State that brain power was applied in producing this document. What is the thinking behind electing somebody to an upper House for a 12 to 15-year term with no right of re-election? How could they possibly be held to account by the constituency for which they have been elected for such a long period?
	Secondly, why on earth can we not do this in this Parliament—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One supplementary is enough.

Jack Straw: I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), because this idea originally came from the royal commission of which he was not just an adornment but a very important element. I think that it has merit in terms of what we are seeking to do. It was also in the February 2007 White Paper and generally received approbation in the two-day debate in March 2007. If we are seeking a Chamber that is complementary, we must have a system of election that does not get in the way of Members of this House. That is a serious anxiety. We therefore propose single terms, although these Members would not be as responsible to their electorates as is any Member of this House. At the same time, it is important, in our view, that there should be recall mechanisms of some kind to ensure, for example, that as well as attendance requirements, the natural check on Members' assiduity and behaviour, which takes place very quickly at each subsequent election, would not arise under this system.

Richard Shepherd: Before we start writing our election addresses on this White Paper I hope that the House will have a debate on it. This is an extraordinary process. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said, it is only a coterie of Front Benchers who have come to these generalised conclusions, which is all that they are. There has been no Speaker's Conference on this major constitutional change. We desperately need to be able to discuss this matter appropriately before any of us come to write our election addresses—in my case, I will include a rejection of the proposals in the form that they take.

Jack Straw: I set out the basis for the talks in my statement on 19 July last year, and there was general approval for them. On 7 March, following the clear votes in this House in favour of 80 per cent. and 100 per cent. and against all other alternatives, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) asked me what the next steps would be, and we said that there would be a cross-party group. A cross-party group was formed with representatives of each of the parties. Of course, on this issue, as on many others, there are disagreements within parties, but that does not alter the legitimacy of our mandate, or of those who served on the cross-party group.

John Spellar: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on resisting the name "senate". Frankly, once they are called senators, they will be completely out of control. An important question is highlighted—apart from "Why are we wasting time on this nonsense, anyway?" Once a second Chamber has an elected mandate, what can stop it from claiming equal responsibility to this House?

Jack Straw: I do not happen to think that reforming our second Chamber is a waste of time. What my right hon. Friend says is exactly the sort of argument that has led to delay and procrastination on this issue. Reform would greatly strengthen our democracy, and I am not in any doubt about that. What was my right hon. Friend's second question?

John Spellar: It was the question of an elected Chamber not claiming equal powers.

Jack Straw: This is an important question, which we debated at great length last March. If my right hon. Friend looks at chapter 5 of the White Paper on Lords reform that we published last year—I will send him a copy—he will find a detailed analysis of other countries' experience of appointed and elected second chambers and the powers that flow from that. There is no direct relationship between the nature of election or appointment and the powers. There are appointed chambers that are powerful and elected ones that are not. It is the nature of the relationship that is crucial, not whether they are elected or appointed.

John Maples: As an opponent of an elected second Chamber, as is everyone else who has spoken on this statement, may I say that I wholly support the Secretary of State's policy of what appears to be endless consultation on the issue? The process looks likely to reach 100 years, and perhaps it could then be given a decent funeral.
	I return to the point about accountability made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). The Secretary of State seemed to say that the fact that a person did not have to be re-elected made the process more accountable. It seems to me that if someone were elected for 15 years, they would have to pay no attention to their constituents—they would not even have to answer their letters, let alone represent their views in any way. If people are to be elected for 15 years on a party list by proportional representation, is the system not very like the one we have at the moment where life peers are mainly appointed by political parties? Why do we not just stick with that?

Jack Straw: I invite the hon. Gentleman to look carefully at our argument on non-renewable terms and at the views of the royal commission, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) played an important part, because it made the original recommendation. In a modern society, we must accept that there is an issue about the other place's lack of legitimacy. It is unusual for the second Chamber of such a large and important country as the United Kingdom to be wholly appointed. Over the years, we have tried to increase the legitimacy of the other place, but it is still appointed. I believe, although my position has moved, that we greatly benefit from its being elected in a way that does not compete but complements the work of this Chamber.

Peter Hain: May I commend my right hon. Friend's thoroughness and progress on this issue but express disappointment that this important question of Lords reform is still in the slow lane? This House voted by an overwhelming majority for a 100 per cent. elected Chamber and by a smaller but none the less clear majority for an 80 per cent. elected Chamber. There is no justification for not introducing a Bill in the next Session, and one of the advantages of doing so would be that it would test Conservative support for Lords reform. I should like that to be put to the test and for us to finish this unfinished business as part of the radical proposals for constitutional reform that I am proud our Labour Government have introduced.

Jack Straw: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's support and, in a sense, I welcome his impatience. As a former Leader of the House, he will be aware of the issues about what is included in the legislative programme. In practical terms, given the huge amount of detail that must still be resolved, it will be difficult to include legislative proposals in the next Session. Given all the fits and starts on Lords reform—including under my party between 1966 and 1968—the measure of cross-party consensus represents significant progress, and we must rapidly build on it.

Adam Price: Church of England bishops may not be men-only in future, but they will be England-only for eternity, so will Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have additional representation to compensate for the fact that they do not have established religion? To echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), given that reform of the House of Lords has been in every Labour manifesto since 1997 and has been Labour policy for the best part of a century, why is the Justice Secretary subcontracting it to the incoming Conservative Administration?

Jack Straw: We are not subcontracting it to anybody. We have made considerable progress on Lords reform: the composition of the other place and its activity rate have been transformed in the past 11 or 12 years, although it remains appointed.
	The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue about the representation of other faith communities, within both the Christian Church and other world religions. I accept his point that if there were an appointed element—it is one of the arguments in favour of an appointed element—the faith communities would be represented, albeit it in a different way. Without an appointed element, there is no provision for any appointments of bishops or of representatives of other faith communities.

Brian H Donohoe: The Minister says that he would welcome views on the system of voting and elections to the Lords being held on the same day as general elections. The election that was held in Scotland on the same day using two different systems was a complete shambles that disfranchised many of my constituents as well as those of colleagues. In the circumstances, surely the only system should be first past the post.

Jack Straw: There is experience of the electorate finding voting straightforward, including in the elections for the London Assembly. I understand my hon. Friend's point, and it might be a further argument in favour of first past the post.

George Young: In last year's vote, was not the status quo the least-favoured option among Conservative Members, with the majority of us voting for at least one of the elected options? On the transition, would not resistance from the other place be reduced if life peers were allowed to serve for life, and, with an average age of 68, is this not a matter on which we can afford to be generous?

Jack Straw: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support. He is absolutely right to say that there was a clear majority of 23 in the Conservative party against a fully appointed Chamber, with the proposal being comprehensively defeated across the Chamber by 196 to 375. Each of the parties must discuss his second point with its peers and, indeed, must do so across the parties. I have yet to reach a final conclusion, but we include in the White Paper and elsewhere various actuarial predictions about how long their lordships would take before life ceased to mean life.

Gordon Prentice: I broadly support the proposals, but I wonder what the White Paper says about the dual mandate. Is my friend proposing that the senators, or whatever they are called, will not be able to serve as Members of the Scottish Parliament, Assembly Members or perhaps even as local authority councillors?

Jack Straw: I think—from recollection—that the White Paper is silent on the dual mandate. I have never seen a problem with people serving on local authorities, but there would be an issue about serving on other bodies.

Oliver Heald: I join in thanking the Justice Secretary for the courteous way in which he ran the working group. However, may I ask him to look again at the arrangements for the elections? He has put forward any number of reasons today why the first-past-the-post system is the preferred way forward. When it comes to the constituencies, surely we should have an end to the regions. Regional assemblies have been grossly unpopular—it has not been possible to pursue them—and regions are not popular in the European elections, either. However, people understand what a county, a town or a city is. If we are to have any confidence in the system, surely people should have a sense of identity with the constituencies in which they are voting. Will the Secretary of State join me in standing strong for the great ancient counties and great cities of England and Britain?

Jack Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. However, it could be said that, as the House of Lords does not deliver a Government or sustain a Government, one of the arguments normally made against proportional representation, which I hold with a passion so far as this place is concerned, is less significant in respect of the other place. That must be weighed in the balance. We need to look at the experience of the various proportional systems that have been used, particularly over the past 11 years. However, let me draw to the House's attention the fact that we are not proposing in the White Paper to go for a closed list system.

David Clelland: These proposals represent major constitutional change. If proposals for elected mayors, regional assemblies and devolved government require referendums, should the people not be asked whether they want to abolish the House of Lords and create 200, 300 or 400 more paid politicians?

Jack Straw: It has never been the view of any party that such a complex issue ought to be put to a referendum, but we are clear that it should be included in election manifestos.

Evan Harris: Even the Government accept in the White Paper that there is no place for bishops in a 100 per cent. elected House, so in their view there is no fundamental constitutional principle in having bishops. Therefore, if the Government want bishops in an 80 per cent. elected House, why not rely on the appointments system rather than reserving a place for 16 or 26 male, mainly conservative people who have separate representation from anyone else?

Jack Straw: I have been a strong supporter of women bishops in the Church of England and I look forward to their future representation in the other place. The issue comes down to the position of the established Church. I understand and respect the hon. Gentleman's view, which is different from mine. One of the things that we need to recognise, at a time of concern about whether there is a lack of faith generally, is the important role that the Lords Spiritual, as bishops of the Church of England, play in representing not only the Church of England but the wider faith communities. It is interesting that almost all representatives of other faith communities, including other world religions, applaud the role of the Lords Spiritual in the other place.

Fiona Mactaggart: I congratulate the Justice Secretary on the progress that he has made in bringing forward proposals that give effect to the views that the House expressed. I would urge him strongly to commit to as open an electoral system as possible, so that through electoral reform it might be possible to involve in our revising Chamber representatives who stand on platforms other than those of our existing political parties. Having a more open system is absolutely appropriate for a revising Chamber whose job is not to sustain a manifesto or sustain the Government, but to scrutinise the work of that Government and revise legislation.

Jack Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's point and I thank her for her support. It is for precisely the reason that she mentioned that none of us was in favour of the closed list system. Proponents of each of the four systems in the White Paper would argue—with some justification—that each system could lead to the election of people of independent spirit and mind to the second Chamber.

Bob Spink: Following on from the previous question, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a case can be made for no whipping of members of the second Chamber in order to protect its independence from the corrupting influence of party politics?

Jack Straw: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a particular view of the Whips—

Bob Spink: Yes.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman says yes, but I have a slightly different view. I think that we cannot operate a party system without Whips, however difficult they may be from time to time—and that is an eternal verity. The whipping system in their lordships' House is already rather loose compared with the system in this House, and that may continue.

Peter Soulsby: I very much welcome the statement and the White Paper. Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that alongside discussion of the issues in the White Paper it is important that we discuss the mechanisms that the political parties will adopt to select candidates for a reformed second Chamber? It would be most unfortunate, and certainly not the wish of this House, to substitute one form of patronage with an even less transparent one. It is important that the second Chamber is not full of centrally appointed party apparatchiks and has only a thin veneer of democratic accountability.

Jack Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, that is one reason why the proposals for a closed list system were not accepted and are not part of the current proposals. The precise form of party mechanism depends to a significant degree on the electoral system that is chosen, but I think that all of us accept the burden of what my hon. Friend says.

Nicholas Winterton: Although I fully support the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), can the Secretary of State give the House any assurance that a new House of Lords will have the same range of skills, qualifications and life experience as the current House of Lords? Will the new House control its own timetable, as the current House of Lords does—something that gives it the ability and authority to hold the Government to account and, unlike this place, properly to scrutinise legislation?

Jack Straw: On the range of skills, if there were an appointed element, some of those who are currently appointed would continue to be appointed, and there is an obvious downside if everyone is elected. However, I do not accept the implication that the only method by which people of experience and education can get to the House of Lords is by appointment, rather than election. Plenty of other systems across the democratic world use election.
	On the House of Lords controlling its own timetable, we do not have proposals to change the present powers. Although it is true that their lordships have become more assertive in scrutinising legislation, the hon. Gentleman will know, as a member of the Modernisation Committee, that there is clear evidence that this House spends longer scrutinising Bills than does the other place.

Chris Bryant: I wholeheartedly congratulate the Justice Secretary on his reforming zeal, not least because we still have ludicrous by-elections for hereditary peers in the House of Lords, the last of which, in May, saw Baroness Darcy de Knayth replaced by the Earl of Stair, whose first predecessor in the House of Lords was given his place there for ordering the massacre at Glencoe. On top of that, we still have convicted criminals in the second Chamber and it is still predominantly representative of London and the south-east. Is not the most important principle that we should stick to the primacy of the House of Commons in that only this House can appoint a Government and only this House can get rid of one?

Jack Straw: Yes to my hon. Friend's final question, and I am grateful for his support in trying to develop a momentum for these proposals. On disqualification, as we set out in the White Paper, we are clear that the same arrangements that apply to this House—disqualification for a criminal conviction, for example—should apply to the other place.

Desmond Swayne: I voted for an elected second Chamber, but I am struggling to remember quite why. The Lord Chancellor has sought to detain us with his statement notwithstanding the fact that the existing arrangements seem to be working pretty well and that there is no prospect of consensus between the two Chambers. As for the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he is going to put the proposals in his manifesto, he will recall that he put a commitment to have a referendum on the European constitution in his previous manifesto.

Jack Straw: On why the hon. Gentleman voted as he did, he will have to consult himself and also perhaps the man for whom he works as Parliamentary Private Secretary—the Leader of the Opposition—as it may be that he was told to vote that way. Who knows? But he did vote for it and we, being faithful servants of the House, have implemented the mandate of the Commons.

David Hamilton: I agree with the comments made earlier that allowing bishops to be represented in the Lords would be an offence to the Catholic Church and, indeed, the Church of Scotland. What happens in the Lords should reflect what happens throughout the UK, so it should include all the religious beliefs if its people. My question, however, is this: if we go ahead and change the electoral system for the House of Lords, it would effectively mean that there would be five separate types of elections in the different parts of the United Kingdom. That cannot be good for democracy. Surely it is about time we started to talk about standardising this country's electoral system.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which requires further consideration. I fully understand what he is saying about the role of the Catholic Church; it does not have a formal position on this issue, but I am not aware of any hostility by members of the Catholic hierarchy to the Anglican hierarchy sitting in the House of peers. Indeed, it is quite the reverse, as they believe that the bishops speak out as they do in the other place not just for the Anglican Church but for all those involved in the proselytising of faith across our society.

Anne Main: As someone who voted for a wholly appointed or a wholly elected second Chamber—I believe anything in between is indefensible—may I ask about the cost of all this rigmarole that we may be undertaking with partly or wholly elected lordships?

Jack Straw: The cost of a reformed Chamber will principally depend on its size. We have suggested somewhere between 400 and 450 members—possibly fewer—while the Conservative party has talked about a Chamber of 300. The smaller it is, the more difficult it will be to effect a transition, but the less expensive it will be.

Douglas Hogg: May I support my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) in emphasising the importance of relatively small, identifiable and manageable constituencies? That rather suggests the old Euro-constituencies prior to 1983. In choosing the method of election, can we keep in mind the undesirability of too much interference from party central offices—and that certainly argues against a closed party list system?

Jack Straw: I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. The closed party list is no part of these proposals; let us be clear about that. It was in our 1997 manifesto— [Interruption.] We will leave aside how it got there— Interruption.] Not by me— [Interruption.] I am being interrupted. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was, of course, right in the rest of what he said.

Peter Bone: I congratulate the Lord High Chancellor on not leaking the statement in advance. It is clear that when statements are not leaked the House is much better attended.
	Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House of Lords is very effective in holding the Government of the day to account? Surely the only reason for reforming it would be to make it more effective. If it is not broken, why is the right hon. Gentleman trying to fix it?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that I had followed the normal conventions. I do not approve of prior briefing on statements, and have always sought to avoid it.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, he needs to consider why he stood in the last general election—along with my party and the Liberal Democrats—supporting a clear manifesto commitment to the seeking of a cross-party consensus on a mainly elected second Chamber. His party had obviously thought about it carefully, and believed that whatever good work the Lords were currently doing—as they are now—could be strengthened by an increase in its legitimacy through an election.

New Member

Mr. Speaker: Will Members wishing to take their seats please come to the Table?
	 The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
	David Michael Davis Esq., for Haltemprice and Howden.

Point of Order

Mike Hancock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Like you, I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would come to the House to make a statement on knife crimes and clear up some of the confusion. If she is persuaded to come, will she also clear up the confusion over the licensing laws? During Home Office questions, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), said that the Government had no intention of changing them, but five minutes later, in a reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), he said that they were considering doing so. The sooner we are given clarification on both points, the better.

Mr. Speaker: Confusion between Ministers is quite common at times, but that is not a point of order.

Orders of the Day

Employment Bill  [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Patrick McFadden: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I thought for a moment that the presence of the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer and so many grandees indicated a sudden interest in minimum wage enforcement. However, as I observe the backs of Members leaving the Chamber, I realise that that may not be the case.
	The Government's employment policy is rooted in the clear principle that the pursuit of economic prosperity must be combined with the pursuit of social justice. We do not believe that society should be forced to choose between those two objectives, and as the economy has grown and employment has grown over the past decades, people in work have enjoyed a better deal. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said recently that for over a decade, the United Kingdom has sustained low inflation and rapid economic growth—an exceptional achievement, the fruit of strong policies and policy frameworks, which provide a strong foundation to weather global challenges. The OECD also praised sound institutional arrangements and regulatory policies that promote efficiency and economic resilience.
	The International Monetary Fund has said:
	"Macroeconomic stability in the United Kingdom remains remarkable",
	and that our
	"flexible and dynamic labour market"
	is one of the United Kingdom's economic strengths.
	We understand the pressures faced by families as a result of global factors, but our economic record is no accident. Combining economic prosperity and social justice is not just complementary: it has been essential to the continued success of the labour market in Britain. The Bill makes changes to the dispute resolution procedures for people at work, and it strengthens the enforcement of the employment rights for which this House has legislated. In doing so, it offers better protection for people at work and is also in the interests of the vast majority of reputable businesses who obey the law and treat their workers fairly.

Nadine Dorries: I hope to be called to speak later as my interests are wide and varied, but for now I ask the Minister to inform me why he feels that this Bill is more important than the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which we should have been debating today?

Patrick McFadden: The House discusses many important issues, and I disagree with the hon. Lady if she feels that it is not important that the House debates minimum wage enforcement and the other subjects that the Employment Bill addresses. I am glad we have this opportunity to debate them today.
	A clear, quick and effective enforcement regime will ensure that individuals are properly compensated if their rights are infringed. The Bill toughens enforcement of employment law by introducing new penalties for employers who do not pay the minimum wage, and it provides additional powers enabling employment agency inspectors to deal with rogue agencies.
	The Bill will reform the mechanisms for dispute resolution by repealing the statutory workplace dispute resolution procedures and replacing them with a package of non-legislative measures to help employers and employees resolve disputes earlier.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with what Michael Gibbons said about these regulations: that they are inflexible and restrictive? Does he agree that this was an example of the policy being good but the execution being appalling?

Patrick McFadden: The Gibbons report said these reforms had been well intentioned but had had unintended consequences. That is precisely why we are repealing them and replacing them with non-statutory measures. We estimate that the changes contained in the Bill will produce annual benefits of some £177 million, and these measures are just a part of the wider simplification agenda, which is set to deliver benefits over and above that over the next three years.
	In addition, the Bill clarifies the position of cadet force adult volunteers in relation to the minimum wage and permits the payment of a broader range of expenses to voluntary workers without triggering entitlement to the minimum wage. It also amends trade union membership law to comply with the European Court of Human Rights judgement in ASLEF  v. UK.
	I shall now turn in more detail to the measures in the Bill, beginning with those on workplace dispute resolution. In March 2007, the Government published Michael Gibbons' independent "Better Dispute Resolution: a Review of Employment Dispute Resolution in Great Britain" and an associated Government consultation paper, "Resolving Disputes in the Workplace". While the current statutory dispute resolution system is based on well-founded principles, the review highlighted several drawbacks in the way the system is operating, such as the inflexibility and high administrative burden of the mandatory procedures affecting both employers and employees, and that the road to the tribunal is fixed too early, resulting in a significant proportion of cases reaching a tribunal hearing which could have been resolved beforehand between the parties. Access to tribunals is an important part of the dispute resolution system and an important recourse for employees who may be facing mistreatment at work, but it is also the case that if disputes can be resolved more informally or earlier, perhaps through conciliation, that is to the benefit of all concerned.
	The Government response to the consultation on dispute resolution shows that the responses were broadly supportive of the conclusions of the review. Some 76 per cent. of respondents favoured repeal of the 2004 procedures and only 20 per cent. opposed it. Clauses 1 and 2 provide for the repeal of the procedures and of linked provisions on procedural unfairness, but the review also made it clear that repeal of the statutory procedures must be accompanied by a package of other measures to encourage good practice in the resolution of workplace disputes and to ensure that Government-funded services promote early resolution as effectively as possible. So, to accompany the repeal, ACAS is revising its statutory code on disciplinary and grievance procedures. The draft code, which is out for public consultation, is concise and principles-based, and it will be supported by fuller non-statutory guidance.

Oliver Heald: The draft code does not seem to make clear the final date by which people must return their consultation replies. Is the Minister able to help by telling us what that date is? A date has been given in respect of the guidance—the end of this month—but it would be useful to know what the position is on the draft code.

Patrick McFadden: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I may come back to him on the precise date.
	Michael Gibbons also argued for an incentive for compliance with the ACAS code. Clause 3 gives tribunals the discretion to adjust awards upwards or downwards by a maximum of 25 per cent. where they find that parties have unreasonably failed to comply with the code. The provision is designed to encourage compliance, but I emphasise that it is a discretionary power for employment judges to apply in the circumstances of the case, without the rigidity of the previous automatic link to the statutory procedures. The Gibbons review concluded that better advice and guidance and greater availability of conciliation as early as possible in a dispute could enable there to be more resolutions without recourse to the tribunal.

Charles Walker: The Minister has said that the award can be varied upwards or downwards by 25 per cent. Will he explain to the House the circumstances in which there would be a downwards move?

Patrick McFadden: One such example might be where an employee had been found to have a case, but they had not complied with the code. Although they still had a case, the tribunal might judge that the award to them should be lowered by up to 25 per cent.
	The Government are making substantial further investment—up to £37 million over three years—to improve the accessibility of the advice services provided by ACAS and to provide additional ACAS conciliation services for disputes before they become the subject of an employment tribunal claim. That is important, because we are not only repealing the statutory procedures in place; we are providing additional funding for the conciliation that we think can help to resolve more disputes earlier. ACAS has a good reputation among both employers and employees, and expanding its work in this way should give more support to the earlier resolution of disputes. Before I move on from discussing the Gibbons review, I am happy to inform the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that the closing date for the code consultation is 24 July.
	The Bill also contains two legislative changes intended to maximise the effectiveness of ACAS conciliation. Clause 5 changes ACAS's existing duty to conciliate in cases that are not yet the subject of a tribunal claim, on request of the parties, into a power. That will enable ACAS to prioritise its case load effectively within its statutory powers. Clause 6 removes the time restrictions on ACAS's duty to offer conciliation to parties already involved in employment tribunal claims, thus ensuring that ACAS conciliation is open to parties right up until the tribunal hears the case. One of the effects of the current system has been that people's minds are often not concentrated fully until the tribunal hearing is almost upon them, and that provision will enable ACAS to continue to offer its services right up until that moment.
	Michael Gibbons recommended that some tribunal cases, which hinge on the determination of facts in monetary disputes, could be dealt with more quickly. That could largely be achieved by changes to employment tribunal practice, but, again, legislative changes in the Bill provide support.
	Clause 4 creates additional safeguards, should the Government decide to activate as yet unused powers for employment judges to decide cases using written evidence without a hearing. Clause 7 simplifies the process for claimants who have suffered direct financial losses arising out of the employer's non-payment of money due—such losses could arise as a result of bank charges for unauthorised overdrafts. In those circumstances, the tribunal would be able to make an additional award against the employer to provide compensation for such losses, rather than leaving the claimant to bring a separate action in the small claims court.

Oliver Heald: The Minister will know that tripartite decision making in the tribunals is strongly supported. The ability of laymen from the employers' side and the employees' side to be part of the decision making is very important. Will what he has just said affect that in any way? Will we see more cases dealt with just by the chairman—the lawyer—and fewer dealt with by the lay members, who bring their important knowledge to bear?

Patrick McFadden: I agree about the value of lay members to the tribunal process, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is not unheard of for tribunal judges to sit alone in some limited jurisdiction cases. We are talking about the capacity not only for tribunal judges to sit alone, but for them to decide cases without a hearing, in limited circumstances that are set out in the clause to which I referred.
	The national minimum wage has been one of this Government's proudest achievements. It was opposed by many, including the Opposition, before it was established. I see that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is in his place, but his party did not turn up for the vote on Third Reading. Despite that, it has become an important and widely supported foundation of fair treatment in the labour market. Some 1 million workers continue to benefit from the assistance of the minimum wage.
	Last week, the House approved regulations increasing the hourly rate from £5.52 an hour to £5.73 from October this year. Historically, low-paid groups have benefited more than most, including part-time workers and low-paid women. Since the introduction of the minimum wage, the lowest paid have seen their pay increase more quickly than the pay of many other workers.
	The vast majority of employers willingly comply with the legislation, but that is not always the case and there are exceptions. Most businesses want to obey the law and treat their staff fairly but there are those who are willing to break the law by denying their staff the minimum wage. That impacts on those workers who are underpaid, but also enables those dishonest employers who flout the law to undercut the vast majority of law-abiding businesses that comply. That is not only unfair, but uncompetitive, and through the measures in this Bill we are determined to take tougher action against it.
	We will crack down on the minority of rogue employers who fail to comply with the minimum wage. Between 2003 and 2006, we completed some 15,000 investigations and identified underpayments totalling £9.6 million. In the past year, the Government have helped to restore more than £3 million in arrears to more than 14,000 workers.

Charles Walker: In the Minister's experience, which sectors of our economy are most prone to breaking the law relating to the payment of the minimum wage?

Patrick McFadden: It is the traditionally lowest paid sectors. For example, this year we have targeted minimum wage enforcement on the hospitality industry, which has a record of low pay. Most employers in that industry are happy to abide by the law, but we have seen some cases of underpayment. We consulted last year on proposals for a new penalty for underpayment of the minimum wage and a fairer way of calculating arrears. Our conclusion was that the enforcement regime should be strengthened in several respects.
	Clause 8 amends the method of calculating arrears owed to those who have been underpaid. They are currently paid at the rate in force at the time when the underpayment took place, which means that when arrears are paid to cover underpayments that took place over several years, the worker loses out from the upratings that have taken place in the meantime. The Bill will change that so that all arrears owed are paid at the current rate, helping to compensate for the potential loss of purchasing power since the offence originally took place.
	Clause 9 introduces an enhanced penalty regime, reflecting the serious view taken by the Government of employers who still do not comply with the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Under the new regime, employers will be liable to a penalty if it is found that they have been making underpayments. The penalty will be based on the employer's level of non-compliance—that is, the total amount of underpayment—subject to a minimum penalty of £100 and a maximum of £5,000. We want to encourage quick repayment, so the penalty will be reduced by one half if the employer repays all arrears to workers within 14 days.

Charles Walker: One thing that concerns many people in the House, particularly in relation to the hospitality industry, is the handling of tips. Will the Minister take any action against those restaurants and establishments that include tips as part of the salary, as opposed to treating them as a gratuity paid by the customer to a member of staff for excellent service?

Patrick McFadden: We have had representations on the subject, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan), who has been very active on that matter. To clarify, everybody in an industry where tipping is common is entitled to the minimum wage, but when tips and gratuities are processed through the payroll of the employer it can, at the moment, count towards the minimum wage. That issue has been raised and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he is looking into it.
	Clause 10 ensures that officers enforcing the minimum wage can take records relating to it in order to make copies of them. Clauses 11 and 12 enhance the way in which we can deal with the most serious offenders by increasing criminal investigative powers and enabling offences to be tried in a Crown court with the prospect of an unlimited fine.
	The Low Pay Commission said in its report last year:
	"We welcome this determination to tackle recalcitrant employers, especially as evidence presented to us during our consultations over the last few years has highlighted the ongoing problem of non-compliance."
	Those changes will ensure that everyone who is caught not paying will pay a penalty, with a potentially unlimited fine for the most serious cases. They send a strong message that paying the minimum wage is not an option but a requirement that must be taken seriously. Coupled with an increase in the enforcement budget of £11.6 million over four years, the measures underline the Government's commitment to securing the fairest outcome for all.
	As I said, good employers have nothing to fear from the changes. In fact, it is in their interests that there should be a tough enforcement regime that stops illegal underpayment of the minimum wage.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give the House an idea of the number of serious cases that the powers in the Bill are designed to deal with? We are giving considerable investigative powers and powers to deal with serious cases on indictment. Therefore, will he give us some idea of how many cases we are talking about?

Patrick McFadden: Most employers are happy to pay when the problem is pointed out. I can give the hon. Gentleman the figures for last year as an example. The total number of employers who were found to be non-compliant with the minimum wage was 1,649. The total number of workers involved was just over 19,000 and the average arrears per worker were £202. That gives some idea of the scope of non-compliance that we know about at the moment.

Lorely Burt: Will the Minister say how many non-compliant employers have been prosecuted as a result of not paying the minimum wage?

Patrick McFadden: According to the figures from last year, 59 enforcement notices were issued and 25 penalty notices. The emphasis has been on compliance. It is partly because we think that that needs to be strengthened that we are proposing the changes. Prosecution will still take place only in the most serious cases, but we think it right that there be a penalty for employers caught not paying the minimum wage.

Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a national minimum wage for agricultural workers in Scotland, although it is under threat from the SNP Administration, who will scrap the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. Is there anything that my hon. Friend's Department can do in that event?

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend raises an important point. If anyone wants to know about the attitude of the SNP to the minimum wage, they should look not just at events a decade ago, when SNP Members did not even bother to turn up to vote for the minimum wage, but at their current proposals which, as he says, place a question mark over the Agricultural Wages Board for Scotland. I am sure that people in Scotland will have taken note of that question mark and are asking why such a thing should be the case.

Emily Thornberry: Will my hon. Friend help us by giving some examples of non-compliance, so that people have a clearer idea why we need enforcement?

Patrick McFadden: I have already given the House some figures on non-compliance. As I said, 1,649 employers were found to be non-compliant last year and the average arrears per worker are £202. For someone earning £5.52 an hour on the minimum wage, £202 is a lot of money, which is precisely why we want to strengthen the enforcement regime to send a clear signal that arrears should not be regarded as an interest-free loan from employers to employees but should attract a penalty when discovered.

Sarah Teather: Has the Minister considered representations made by the unions and by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) to the effect that employers should pay interest on arrears so that they do not have an interest-free loan at the expense of their employees?

Patrick McFadden: The payment of interest has been raised with us, but it would take us into complicated areas with regard to the tax treatment of the interest. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want workers on the minimum wage to have to fill out a separate tax return simply because they had received a small amount of interest. Unfairness was developing in the way in which arrears were being paid because, as I said, upratings were not being taken into account. By taking upratings into account and paying all arrears at the current rate, even if the underpayment goes back several years, we shall deal with the issue of what could, in effect, have been an interest-free loan.
	On cadet force adult volunteers, when the minimum wage was introduced, it was designed to enable the voluntary sector to continue to operate successfully and with certainty within the law, while minimising the chance of sub-minimum wage jobs emerging which could be unfairly badged as volunteering. Last year's consultation showed that the rules were working well on the whole, but it also indicated that there was a need to clarify the position for cadet force adult volunteers, who occupy a unique role, as they are linked to the armed forces and undergo special training and security clearance.
	Cadet force adult volunteers devote a large amount of time and energy to engaging 130,000 young people in the cadet forces. I think the whole House will agree that we should be grateful for their dedication to making a positive difference to the lives of so many young people. Any confusion that may arise about eligibility for the minimum wage could seriously damage the ability of the cadet forces to continue to provide their services. For that reason, clause 13 amends the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 to make it clear that cadet force adult volunteers do not qualify for the minimum wage. I stress the fact that the provision does not change the current situation, but puts it beyond doubt in law. It will enable cadet force adult volunteers to operate exactly as they do currently and it will not affect any entitlement to the minimum wage that they may have outside cadet force activity.
	In addition to clarifying the position of cadet force adult volunteers, we have taken the opportunity to extend the range of expenses that voluntary workers can receive without triggering eligibility for the national minimum wage. That issue has been raised with us a number of times by voluntary organisations. Again, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House want the voluntary sector to thrive and unnecessary barriers to volunteering to be removed.
	Currently, voluntary workers can be reimbursed for expenses incurred only in the actual performance of their duties. That was designed to ensure that extra expenses were not used as a method to avoid paying the minimum wage. However, voluntary workers clearly necessarily incur expenses to perform their duties, such as those involving child care, travel or the cost of specialist clothing or equipment. We recognise that voluntary workers should not be financially burdened as a result of their activities. Clause 14 will therefore enable voluntary organisations to reimburse such expenses where they are legitimate. That will enable voluntary workers to continue to make their highly valuable contributions to society, while ensuring that they are not out of pocket in doing so.

Lorely Burt: I wonder whether the Minister can explain to the House the reasoning for excluding accommodation costs.

Patrick McFadden: Accommodation can be directly provided, as part of a voluntary activity, but we were not keen to have what could be large amounts of rent changing hands. Large sums could be involved, and that could take us into a grey area in deciding what was expenses and what was not. So we have widened the definition, and accommodation can be directly provided. That is the judgment that we reached on the issue.
	Clauses 15 to 17 will change the enforcement of employment agency legislation. Under the Employment Agencies Act 1973, any breach of the Act or the regulations made under it that govern employment agencies is a criminal offence capable of being tried in a magistrates court. By making offences triable either way, as the Bill will do, we aim to increase deterrence against non-compliance by the prospect of the unlimited fines available in the Crown court for the worst offenders. Stronger investigative powers, including the right to take away documents to copy and to request financial information on non-compliant agencies held by financial institutions, should also enable more successful prosecution of the worst offenders.
	Alongside the strengthening of the enforcement powers, we are doubling the number of inspectors appointed under employment agency legislation. That will provide important additional resources, both to help legitimate agencies that seek to comply with the law and to enable inspectors to crack down on non-compliance.
	Finally, the Bill will amend trade union law to ensure that it complies with the European convention on human rights, following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of ASLEF  v. the United Kingdom. According to that judgment, the current limitations on the ability of trade unions to exclude or expel individuals on the grounds of their membership of a political party breach article 11 of the convention. Clause 18 will therefore amend the sections of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that gave rise to the ASLEF  v. the UK case. The case involved the inability of ASLEF to expel members of the British National party whose views were incompatible with those of the union.

Jim Sheridan: Will my hon. Friend perhaps expand on the ECHR ruling on European law? Given that most, if not all, trade unions have a rulebook agreed by the members and that, when someone joins a trade union, its rules are made perfectly clear, why is it not acceptable for trade unions to expel someone for breaking the rules when an employer can do so?

Patrick McFadden: The ECHR discussed such rights in the ruling. Of course, there are rights to expression and freedoms of association, and the ruling touches on both. During the Bill's progress through the other place, there was much discussion of that issue, and the Government decided to amend clause 18 to add additional safeguards on the use of such powers. The version in the Bill also takes into account the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and others who felt that that the clause did not provide sufficient safeguards against possible abuse. They argued in favour of greater protection for individuals. The clause, although amended, still provides for compatibility with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. As long as trade unions act responsibly—I believe that they will—they should be able to act in accordance with the judgment.
	The Bill makes important changes to key areas of employment law, especially with regard to the effective enforcement of the laws passed in this Parliament. It will save businesses and individuals time and money through a widely supported reform of the dispute resolution framework. It provides more rigorous enforcement of the minimum wage and employment agency standards to benefit both the low-paid and the law-abiding businesses. It also clarifies the position of cadet force adult volunteers, who do such valuable work in the community, and allows necessary expenses to be paid to individuals carrying out voluntary work. It also makes necessary changes, as a result of an ECHR ruling, to trade union membership law.
	All in all, the Bill continues support for economic prosperity and fairness in the workplace, which we have promoted over the past decade. We have one of the highest employment rates in the G8 and among the lowest unemployment rates. We are rated by the World Bank as one of the best countries in the world in which to do business. We want to keep that record and to ensure that Britain is also one of the best countries in the world in which to work. I commend the Bill to the House.

Jonathan Djanogly: For the past decade, businesses of all sizes have had to cope with the steady drip, drip of employment legislation. Since 1997, the Government have introduced some 18 Acts and more than 280 statutory instruments dealing directly with employment, which have often left employers bemused, baffled and bewildered by the negative implications for UK employment. Last autumn, pre-credit crunch, a survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that nearly 80 per cent. of small business owners handled paperwork themselves, and that a third of those businesses claimed that they would not be hiring new staff because of bureaucratic complexities. It is by that and other means that the Labour Government are continually damaging the flexibility of the UK's labour market.
	Only a few weeks ago, a further deal was done between Labour and the trade unions to tamper with the laws on agency workers, which could be very damaging for already overburdened businesses. The Government made that massive and costly concession to their Back Benchers. They have fought in Brussels against the European agency workers directive for the past five years, but the sad reality is that they could no longer handle the pressure back at home. It is a testament to the Prime Minister's weakness that Britain's economic interests are being weighed up as less significant than his political survival.
	I am glad that the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform finally seems to recognise that the Government have gone too far. He recently admitted—of course, this was after the Government had passed 298 employment laws—that there was a
	"need to challenge the automatic assumption that the only way to deal with exploitation in the workplace is by passing new laws."
	That is certainly something to support, but judging by the latest trade union wish list that has been floating around the media in advance of the Labour party's Warwick discussions, he will have a big fight on his hands. As we enter this period of economic instability, it is critical that the Secretary of State ensures that flexibility remains a cornerstone of our labour market so that if unemployment begins to rise businesses have the proper flexibility to organise their work forces and can weather the storm. It is with that in mind that I shall examine the provisions of this latest Employment Bill.
	First, however, may I say that while the Bill's passage through the Lords lasted for months, we were given only a few days' notice of the debate, which was not ideal and not conducive to allowing Members to participate? Additionally, the Secretary of State has pulled out of leading on a Bill that he wishes to push through at such short notice, and we believe that that deserves some explanation from a Minister, perhaps during the wind-ups.

Angus MacNeil: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about participation. Is it not indicative of what he says that only four Labour MPs are present to hear the debate on the Bill?

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. It is the second time that such a thing has happened; only a few weeks ago, the Secretary of State failed to lead the debate on the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill. There are key Government Bills on deregulation and employment law, but the Secretary of State has not led on them. Business can draw its own conclusions from that.

Jim Sheridan: If, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, employment legislation can lead to high unemployment, why is it that when his party was in office, 3 million people were unemployed, but during our party's time in government there has been very low unemployment? What does that have to do with employment legislation?

Jonathan Djanogly: I will not answer that question, which is a thesis point, in any depth, mainly because I never said what the hon. Gentleman claims I said. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) may have had a point when she said that perhaps the Government wanted to avoid a debate on abortion today because of the by-election on Thursday. We can only speculate.

Emily Thornberry: Will the hon. Gentleman assist us on one point? He seems to be saying that, on the one hand, flexibility is the cornerstone of our economy, but, on the other hand, we do not have flexibility. May I prod him a little more and ask him why, when we have the highest employment rates and the highest number of people employed, he continues to complain about the markets not being sufficiently flexible? Will he please explain that to us?

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Lady talks as though there are absolutes of flexibility. There are no absolutes. The Conservative Government left a relatively flexible economy in place, but it has steadily become less flexible under this Labour Government.
	The first aspect of the Bill that I wish to discuss is the clauses dealing with dispute resolution. Clause 1 repeals clauses and schedules of the Government's Employment Act 2002 and removes the statutory procedures for resolving disputes in the workplace in their entirety. We support that conceptually, but it should be appreciated that that is a desperately embarrassing U-turn for the Government, who doggedly defended the procedures when the provisions in the 2002 Act were initially examined by the Standing Committee.
	It would serve as a useful reminder of the cost of that change of heart, both in terms of the House's time and taxpayers' money, if I ran through some of the warnings that my hon. Friends gave the Government about the existing statutory procedures, and highlighted some of the Government's reasons, now proven to be flawed, for implementing that legislation. In debate in the Standing Committee, on 13 December 2001, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) quoted a number of parties' misgivings about the statutory procedures. The Engineering Employers Federation argued that the
	"the proposals are unclear, complicated and might prove counter productive."—[ Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 December 2001; c. 139.]
	The Law Society said that they would "undermine the ACAS...Code."
	ACAS has been in existence since 1975, and it is dedicated to preventing and resolving employment disputes. When the Employment Act 2002 was passed nearly 30 years later, it made reference to the ACAS code but did not implement it in full. That was clearly a mistake, and it has led to much confusion for both employers and employees.

Oliver Heald: Is not my hon. Friend being characteristically generous in his comments about the Government? Did not a 1994 Green Paper include the proposal, although the Conservative Government did not go ahead with the idea of internal procedures having to be dealt with first? Ian Lang, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said at the time that the
	"the reservations expressed by many responding to the Green Paper that the proposal to require employees to attempt to resolve disputes with their employers before being able to make an application to an industrial tribunal might lead to increased delays and complexity in tribunal procedures, rather than alleviating them."—[ Official Report, 20 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 20W.]
	In other words, he got it right three or four years before Labour came to power.

Jonathan Djanogly: I thank my hon. Friend for his important contribution. The issue goes even further. If we look through the record, we see that even the trade unions, the Labour party's close friends, had misgivings at the time. The TUC expressed its concerns over the "potential confusion" between the proposed legislation and the widely supported ACAS code.
	However, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), then Minister with responsibility for employment relations, was undeterred by such criticism. His response was to say:
	"We have set out a minimum three-step procedure because that is the right direction in which to move"—[ Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 December 2001; c.142 .]
	He even implied that employment disputes would be simplified, as the Employment Bill as it was at that time had fewer provisions than the ACAS code. However, at some point the Government decided that the three-step procedure was not the right direction to take. The measures came into force in October 2004, and the Government spent the following years trying to undo the legislation that they themselves created.
	In March 2006, less than two years after statutory procedures were introduced, the Government published a policy statement rather grandly called "Success at Work", in which they announced that a review of the dispute resolution regulations was necessary. In the course of the next few months, they came clean about the fact that a full review of all dispute resolution procedures was needed. The then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry admitted that the time, cost and stress involved in settling disputes could be reduced by making changes.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) has noted, the consequent review, undertaken by Michael Gibbons, found that the procedures, as they stood at the time, involved a high administrative burden for both employers and employees; that they resulted in the need to use formal mechanisms such as the laying down of red tape, although previously disputes could be informally resolved; and that they were over-complex and the penalties for failing to observe them resulted in employers and employees seeking external legal advice earlier than in the past. That last consequence is of particular interest as the Government claim in their explanatory notes to the new Employment Bill that it was unforeseen. We beg to differ.
	In a Committee discussion on 18 December 2001, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) pointed out to the Minister with responsibility for employment relations that the Government's dispute resolution procedures
	"would open the door for yet another lawyers' bonanza."
	My hon. Friend continued his warning to the Minister by arguing that there existed a need
	"to establish certainty so that employers and employees can enter contractual arrangements knowing that they are compliant with the law without having to get involved with lawyers."—[ Official Report, Standing Committee F, 18 December 2001; c. 178.]
	He then questioned the suitability of the proposed and subsequently implemented legislation for achieving that certainty. The Minister's response was that the procedures were designed to be simple and easy to understand and that uncertainty should not arise. At least now, by proposing to repeal said statutory procedures, the Government are admitting that that over-simplistic assessment was utterly wrong.
	The problem is that this is yet another occasion on which Labour has got it wrong. Last week's Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill, which the Minister and I recently debated, was its third attempt at reform, and this is its second attempt on dispute resolution procedures. What the Secretary of State said about less employment legislation is the opposite of the case—not only are we seeing more and more employment legislation, but a good part of it is an attempt to patch up previous, failed labour laws.
	We support the existence of a national minimum wage and the continual monitoring of the legislative provisions dealing with it. We also support action to ensure that workers who receive the minimum wage do not lose out in real terms when they are owed arrears as a result of underpayment. The current law gives almost no deterrent to underpayment, and we would welcome its amendment.
	However, we have concerns about certain aspects of this area of the Bill and we would like to hear more from the Government. They claim that they expect the new penalty measures under clause 11 to increase the deterrent effect on businesses that do not currently pay the national minimum wage. The Minister has said that some 1,600 employers were found to be non-compliant, but last year only very few cases of underpayment were deemed bad enough to lead to the issue of one of the Government's penalty notices. Other cases led to the employer paying arrears, but in no way being punished for the illegal underpayment. The Government have also said that only 5 to 10 per cent. of cases will result in the imposition of a penalty under the new legislation; it is therefore unclear to us how the new penalty, applied to only a small fraction of cases, will act as more of a deterrent than the currently rarely applied penalty notice. The Minister shook his head at my figure of 5 to 10 per cent., and I would be grateful if he put me right on that. While the proposal to allow enforcement officers to be able to withdraw and replace notices of underpayment is beneficial as errors may be corrected, the potential disadvantage, as with the current penalty notice regime, is that there are no real incentives for officers to get the notice right first time. Officers may issue an incorrect notice, put the employer to the trouble and expense of appealing it, and simply start again when they recognise their error. As with so many of the Government's attempts to make things better, there is potential for red tape and bureaucracy to mar the process.
	We strongly oppose the suggestion made in the other place on 13 March that the national minimum wage be extended to foreigners working on British ships and foreigners working on any ship at any time when it is within British territorial waters. Broadly speaking, we are concerned that those changes could be made prematurely, and we shall look to the Minister to address those concerns. I note that he did not comment on the report by the TUC's commission on vulnerable employment. Perhaps he could comment on the Government's findings on that report in relation to the proposals in the Bill. I urge that any changes that are made be implemented with maximum publicity. All employers must be given the opportunity to assess their companies and to correct any failings in payment of the national minimum wage before the new penalties are imposed. Have the Government yet given any indication of the expected costs of the new powers in enforcing the minimum penalty? If not, it is difficult to assess whether the proposals are the best way forward in protecting low-paid, vulnerable workers.
	The Minister concluded with the provisions on trade union membership, and I shall do the same. I therefore turn to clause 18, which, as he said, represents a response to the judgment made on 27 February last year by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of ASLEF  v. the UK. The clause enables trade unions to prohibit or expel from their organisation an individual who belongs, or has belonged to, a particular political party. It amends the relevant sections of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. To our mind, the clause represents yet another rewrite of inadequate provisions that the Government introduced just four years ago.

Jim Sheridan: The hon. Gentleman clearly has a jaundiced view of trade unions. Perhaps I could point out that his party's candidate in the Glasgow, East by-election goes out of her way to tell people that she is a member of a trade union and has said as a matter of public record that trade unions are a force for good. What does he say to her?

Jonathan Djanogly: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and I joined the TUC's commission on vulnerable employment, contributed to its report and attended one of its evidence sessions. We have taken an interest in the trade unions' viewpoint on this matter, which is why I ask the Government to do likewise. Perhaps they are embarrassed and do not want to bring them into the discussion. I am helping the hon. Gentleman by bringing the unions' case on to the Floor of the House.
	The Employment Relations Act 2004 introduced measures to allow trade unions to expel members with extreme political views. The then Minister with responsibility for employment relations, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), hailed the new provisions as striking the right balance between workers, trade unions and employers. He argued that they would provide "protections for workers" and said that he believed that successful workplaces are founded on partnerships between employers, workers and their representatives. That is all well and good—how different, though, from the position of the Government today. The current Minister seems to have no qualms about throwing the interests of the aforementioned workers and employers out with the bath water in order to allow the trade unions to sit at the top table and call the shots. These, of course, are the same trade unions that now provide more than 90 per cent. of the Labour party's donations, as opposed to the 55 per cent. they provided when the earlier provisions were on the table. I agree that it is appropriate to respond to the ASLEF decision, but we have concerns about clause 18.
	We are pleased that the Government have accepted the much-debated amendment to clause 18, first proposed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and introduced by the Liberal Democrat Lord Lester of Herne Hill in the other place on 13 March. The decision to expel a trade union member will be unlawful if
	"the decision to exclude or expel was taken otherwise than in accordance with the union's rules"
	or established procedures, or if the exclusion or expulsion would prejudice the individual's livelihood or conditions of employment. That is a fair starting point for dealing with the sometimes conflicting rights of trade unions and their own members. It should ensure that a heavy-handed union boss cannot usurp the internal rules to which members sign up. It prevents trade unions from throwing out members purely on the basis that the opinions of the member differ from the union's own ideals. It should also prevent unions from exerting power beyond their remit, thereby protecting the employment status of union members expelled under the clause. However, in order to protect union members from over-bearing union officials who may wish to impose their will unfairly, it would be preferable for stronger boundaries to be drawn around the clause.
	Clause 18 is silent on determining the organisations that are classified as political parties. That could allow trade unions to flex their muscles and evict individuals who are members of organisations with which the union clashes. Is it truly the intention of the ASLEF decision that membership of politically active organisations such as Greenpeace or Amnesty International should be grounds for eviction from a trade union? I do not think that that is intended. More thought needs to be put into the drafting of clause 18 if we are to prevent unions from imposing their political biases on their members.
	I also find the application of the clause to former membership of a political party somewhat worrying. Why should a 40-year-old employee, for instance, face the possibility of being evicted from a trade union on the basis that he was a member of a certain political party for a short time when he was a student? That aspect of the clause represents a one-size-fits-all approach typical of much of the union legislation of the old days, and maintains a definite air of retrospective punishment. Lord Bach argued that tighter wording in clause 18 was not necessary, as disgruntled expelled trade union members can make a complaint to the certification officer. I met the certification officer recently to discuss his role and the powers that he has been given, and on the basis of what he reported in that meeting I do not think that the Government's argument holds much sway. By his own admission, the certification officer has very weak powers of inspection, and is not able to issue penalties to unions. That regulator is a relic of the trade union settlement of the 1940s and 1950s, rather than an effective, modern-day regulator, and it requires reform. The situation shows how little the Government think about the protection of individual trade union members as opposed to the unions themselves.
	Finally, we may be looking at the response to ASLEF from the wrong perspective. All in the House today would agree that many, if not most, of the BNP's policies are abhorrent, but it is still classified as a political party, membership of which is not, per se, illegal. Should not eviction from a trade union still essentially be for reasons of improper conduct, rather than based on a blanket, one-size-fits-all attitude towards membership of a particular political party? On the final day of Grand Committee in the other place, Baroness Perry of Southwark said that the Minister remained open-minded on clause 18, and Lord Bach said that the Government remain open to others' views on the clause. I hope that that is truly the case, and that the Government take full account of the arguments made today.
	Looking at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform legislative programme, I find increasingly that we are on some kind of merry-go-round, with Ministers calling for fewer laws, but doing the exact opposite. Ministers try to give the impression that they know where their party is heading, while in reality their union-led Back Benchers are not only calling the shots but regularly rebelling when they do not get what they want. At a time when British business is entering difficult waters, the last thing it needs is a Government who say one thing and then cannot deliver.

John McDonnell: This is the first time that I have been accused of calling the shots on Government legislation.  [ Interruption. ] I know, although I will try to get through this speech without any further references to by-elections in Glasgow.
	My entry into this debate comes from my promotion last year of the Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill, which not only was supported by the TUC unanimously at congress, but received the support of action required by the Labour party conference. My Bill resulted from our experience in my constituency with Gate Gourmet. A large number of my constituents, largely Asian women, who were working for Gate Gourmet, a company that received contracts outsourced from British Airways, went to work one morning and were herded into a shed. A manager then came forward and sacked them by megaphone for refusing to sign up to new terms of work that would undermine their conditions, cut their pay and even threaten their pension status.
	At that time, we were looking for new legislation that would provide protection to those workers. However, some hon. Members will also recall that other members of the Transport and General Workers Union at the airport spontaneously came out on strike in solidarity. The airport is like a mining village. People work in different sections of the airport and for different companies. Many worked for companies to which contracts had been outsourced by British Airways and had worked with each other in the past. Indeed, many were members of the same family working in different areas, so there was a natural feeling of spontaneous support for the workers, largely women, who had been sacked so brutally by Gate Gourmet.
	The workers therefore came out on strike. As a result, the TGWU was threatened with tens of millions of pounds—the figure quoted was about £42 million—in fines by the aviation industry, which threatened to break the union. Eventually, the workers had to go back to work. Although the union did its best, some individuals suffered severe detriment, in both wages and conditions. Indeed, some of them are still not even back at work, despite all the union's hard work and best endeavours.
	It was in that climate that I expected the Employment Bill to reflect the concerns of trade union members, as well as members of the community throughout, and to reflect the Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill, which we sought to promote last year, because such incidents continue. Only last week we had a debate with the Minister present—I am grateful for his help in the discussions that we are having—because the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union had come forward about the Lyndale group. For three years, Lyndale had been planning to restructure, but without consultation with the trade unions. Lyndale went into administration, but within hours established itself as a new company trading in exactly the same way, laid off 700 workers, avoided its responsibilities for redundancy payments and, again, frogmarched some workers off its site.
	That is no way in which to treat workers in this day and age. The reason why companies can treat workers so is that we have fewer trade union rights now than we had in 1906, after the Taff Vale judgment. We still do not have the right to strike embedded in law and we no longer have the right to solidarity action. As a result, the reality of work for many people is that they are exploited and feel unprotected, so I was hoping for a more ambitious Bill than this one.
	I would like to set out those areas in which some of us will seek to amend the Bill in Committee and on Report to improve the situation, so that people can be represented properly by their trade unions, and so that industrial harmony can break out. Respect for trade union rights has been fundamental for co-operation between workers and employers for two centuries now, and has produced an industrial climate that has been beneficial to both sides of the industry, as well as to the community overall. I would like to go through those elements of the Bill that I would like to be amended and which I hope will form the agenda for later debate. Other Members on our Benches have issues that they would like to raise for amendment, too.
	The first issue that I want to discuss is industrial action. There is currently no right to strike in law in this country, although we have the right to be protected for a limited period from employers' attempts to threaten actions on breach of contract. In their most recent legislation on the issue, the Government improved the situation by extending the period of protection from eight to 12 weeks, but the right to strike is still not embedded in law, as it is across Europe. Furthermore, no protection is provided after 12 weeks, and I would like the Bill to be amended so that employees are given protection for an indefinite period when they go on strike. They should also have the right to take action if an employer takes action against them, unless the employer can prove that the detriment to, or the sacking of, a member of staff is not related to the industrial action.
	Even though people are protected for 12 weeks and action can be taken if they are sacked or suffer detriment, the Bill also fails to amend current law under which there is no effective way for them to ensure that they are reinstated. Their trade union may introduce a reinstatement order on their behalf following action by their employer, but such orders are made in only 0.2 per cent. of the cases that are brought, and few are implemented. I would therefore like the Bill to be amended to make effective the protection that people have when they take industrial action.
	The Bill also relates to agencies. We successfully introduced legislation to prevent agencies from being used to bring in workers to break strikes, but a loophole continues to exist, and agencies are still used to bring in strike-breaking workers. Indeed, in the Gate Gourmet case, the employer prepared well in advance by recruiting agency workers. I would like us to use a provision from the Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill to amend this Bill by placing a duty on the employer to inform the agency when a dispute takes place. At the moment, agencies often argue that they are unaware of such disputes.
	Unfortunately, the Bill also fails to consider ballot arrangements. The balloting process that trade unions currently have to undertake is complex and in many ways invites litigation and injunctions from employers. The Government need to examine a simplified notice system, which would benefit all sides. The employer should be given notice of future industrial action, but the amount of information required should be significantly reduced. For example, we have seen a number of disputes in which injunctions have been taken out against individual trade unions for not giving full information regarding the number, names and addresses of employees or the places where they work. Such requirements no longer reflect the modern workplace, where employees are moved from time to time, making it difficult to keep track of them, particularly when there is an element of outsourcing and contracts have been delegated to individual companies. I would like the Government to reconsider the issue, because it is in everyone's interests that we introduce a simplified procedure for giving notice to the employer, which requires less information about the number of employees who will participate in the dispute. In that way, we would overcome the unnecessary difficulties and, often, conflicts that embitter disputes as a result of the notice requirements in existing legislation.
	We recently had an extensive debate in Westminster Hall on the minimum wage at which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was present. We hoped that the Bill would address a range of the issues that were raised, and although I welcome the fact that it addresses some of them, there are many outstanding ones. I still have a number of concerns—other hon. Members mentioned them during that Westminster Hall debate—including the Government's failure to reconsider the youth rate of the minimum wage. It is perplexing for many of us that the youth rate discriminates against younger workers. There are currently three national minimum wage rates based on age; workers between the ages of 16 and 17 receive £3.40 an hour, workers between the ages of 18 and 21 get £4.60 and workers aged over 22 get £5.52 an hour. What that means for the 16 to 17-year-olds is an annual wage of £6,630; and for the 18 to 21-year-olds, it is £8,970. I believe that those are poverty wages, and I find it almost impossible to understand how anyone, particularly an 18 to 20-year-old, could survive on a wage of £8,970 a year. Even for the over-22s, the annual minimum wage is only £10,764. These are poverty pay rates.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) laid early-day motion 329 before the House on the issue of the national minimum wage for young workers, and it was signed by more than 100 Labour Members. It called on the Government
	"to take steps to remove the age discrimination in the national minimum wage and establish one rate for all workers irrespective of age."
	I regret that that principle has not been embodied in the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) referred to seafarers—again, in the recent Westminster Hall debate, we also asked that the Bill consider their position. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran will also dwell on that subject. Speaking as someone who has steered debates on seafarers through the House for the past five years or longer, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed that the Bill does not even look at the current problem. I have discussed the issue with the Clerks, however, and found out that it will be in order to amend the Bill to deal with the matter later.
	Some Members will know the background to that debate because they have participated in it with me over the years. For a number of years, the Race Relations Act 1976 exempted shipping, so shipowners were able to discriminate in the payment of their workers on the basis of race. The European Union asked the Government to look again at the matter and there was a long campaign, organised by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, in response to which the Government committed themselves to review the issue of discrimination on racial grounds, which meant that two seafarers doing exactly the same job on a British flagship were being paid differential rates based on their race. Most of us found that morally abhorrent, as it was dramatically perpetuating the exploitation of workers on low rates of pay.
	We campaigned and the Government responded, telling us that they would reform the law, but the reform that they introduced was unacceptable—the Government amended the legislation so that it could no longer discriminate on grounds of race, but discrimination on grounds of nationality continued. Most of us find that distinction almost impossible to fathom. We thought we had gained at least one concession when a former Minister gave a commitment to the Regulatory Reform Committee that all workers on UK flagships and ships working in British waters would be paid the minimum wage. I felt that that was a breakthrough, a concession and a victory that had resulted from our long-standing campaign.
	What we did not know then was that British waters would be defined not as territorial waters, as is generally accepted, but as Britain's internal waters. As a result, large numbers of workers—even on ferries, which we would usually consider to be within British waters—are not being paid the minimum wage, as employers continue to discriminate on the basis of nationality. I hope that in later stages of our consideration, we will be able to amend the Bill in order to secure fairness and equity for all workers, who should get the rate for the job, based on the nature of the job itself, not on their country of origin.
	In his introduction, the Minister spoke about the enforcement of the minimum wage. Many of us welcomed the statements made some time ago by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Prime Minister, about the allocation of additional funding of £3 million for the purpose of enforcement, but as we said in the Westminster Hall debate, it does not look as though much of that money has actually filtered through to the appointment of staff. I would welcome the Minister's pledge to reconsider that matter and the powers given to individual officers working for the enforcement team.
	Third-party actions also warrant further examination. At present, enforcement takes place when individuals demonstrate that they are being paid less than the minimum wage. In some circumstances that requires an act of courage, especially when exploitative employers seek to intimidate their work forces. Perhaps the Minister will consider tabling an amendment allowing third-party actions. That would enable trade unions and other organisations to represent individuals or groups of workers and bring cases relating to failure to pay the minimum wage, so that the system would no longer need to rely on individuals who can so easily be victimised and intimidated.
	The Minister mentioned voluntary workers and cadet force adult volunteers, but I believe that the Bill may allow us to look beyond those groups. We have received representations from the National Union of Journalists and the Performers Alliance, which includes Equity, the Musicians' Union and the Writers' Guild of Great Britain. According to the NUJ, many people, mostly in newspapers but across the media, are required to work voluntarily not just for a few hours a week or a few weeks but, in some cases, for between six and 12 months in order to get on to the ladder even to be considered for a permanent position. As a result, they fall outside any legislation that would protect them from exploitation and ensure that they were paid the minimum wage at some stage in their careers. I hope that the Minister will examine the issue of volunteers in those sectors and propose amendments, because we may not have another opportunity to tackle it for some time.
	The Performers Alliance unions also raised the issue of agency fees and their effect on the minimum wage. We know that the Government have helped greatly through their moves to protect workers from an agency which, at one point, was charging high fees and deducting them from wages, with the result that many workers' pay fell below the level of the minimum wage. However, there is still a loophole. Some agents have reconstructed themselves as publishers, so that workers can be charged a publication fee simply to be listed in a directory. They are being exploited by having to pay a fee upfront, which is deducted from their pay so that, again, it falls below the minimum wage. Perhaps that too could be amended in the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), who is no longer present, mentioned tips. We have been promised movement on that for a long time. A private Member's Bill was drafted in the hope that the Government could incorporate its provisions in future legislation. I think the time has come to give full protection to workers who depend on gratuities, so that those amounts are not deducted from their minimum wage. At present there are a number of ways in which employers can avoid the current legislation, with the result that workers do not receive the full reward for their good service. That too was raised in the Adjournment debate a few weeks ago, and again we hope that the Minister will be able to incorporate provisions from the private Member's Bill in this legislation.
	I hope that another issue raised by Members will be incorporated. The Bill provides powers of enforcement in regard to non-payment of the minimum wage, but we believe that the provision for the exchange of information between agencies should include the opportunity to deal with non-payment of holiday money, and with other payments not made by employers. The Bill should contain a right of protection, so that those officers who deal with the enforcement of the minimum wage can also deal with the non-payment of holiday pay and other payments that employees should have received but the employer has avoided paying.
	I also hope the Minister will consider the representations we have received from a number of unions—I am thinking in particular of the civil service union, the Public and Commercial Services Union—on workplace environmental representatives. We were hoping that the role that such representatives play in their companies and their work sectors would be recognised in this Bill. Environmental representatives are like health and safety representatives in that they want to participate in the development of the policy of their company—or agency, or Government Department—with regard to improving the environmental standards of their workplace. At present, they undertake that role while some employers, including Government Departments, recognise them and some do not. They play a vital role in identifying areas where the environmental standards and performance of their employers can be improved, but they gain no statutory recognition and as a result no facilities in assisting them other than those that have been acquired voluntarily by representations to their employers. I would like the Government to look at the formal recognition of workplace environmental representatives, particularly on the day when we have received an Environmental Audit Committee report on the lack of progress, to put it diplomatically, especially of Government Departments in achieving the Government's own environmental targets.
	Finally, let me turn to the part of the Bill that deals with the ASLEF judgment. A range of problems have been identified in the concessions the Government have so far made in the other place. I believe they will impede the implementation of the spirit of the Government proposals, particularly with regard to the detail of what is required of a union in identifying what political party the member they are dealing with belongs to and how that can change over time. Other fairly onerous requirements will undermine the implementation of the European Court of Justice's decision on the matter. We will look at amendments as this Bill proceeds through Committee and on Report, but I think there is agreement in every part of the House that it is most important that we ensure that trade unions have the freedom not to have to accept as members those who hold offensive views and act offensively.
	That leads me on to another issue to do with our public services, which I think may be addressed in this part of the proposed legislation. We already have rules and regulations that prevent British National party members from serving in the police and prison services, but we do not have those rules for BNP members who work in other sections and Government Departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, where they are meant to be serving a multicultural community. I would like the Government to look at from what other areas of service beyond the police and the Prison Service we should bar the employment of BNP members or bar their continued membership of the BNP, because I believe that holding those views and being a member of that party infects their role in serving a multicultural community. We should do everything we can and employ the full legislative force to prevent BNP members from operating in those sectors and thereby undermining the ethos of fair and equal service to the public.
	I hope to work through those issues during the Bill's progress because, by doing so, I believe we have the opportunity to implement employment legislation that addresses some of the key issues that face many of our work force today.
	Mention has been made of the Warwick agreement and the discussions taking place at present about Warwick mark 2. On that, I wish to repeat my disappointment that we have not had the opportunity within this Employment Bill to assert in law, as is the case in the rest of Europe, the basic human right of someone to withdraw their labour, including by secondary action—sympathetic action—in solidarity with other workers. Until we can secure that right once again, people will continue to be exploited; there will be bad employers who seek to undermine their wages and conditions, and the balance between employer and employee will still be out of kilter. I urge the Government to look again at this Bill to see whether we can include once again in British law this protection and the basic human right to withdraw one's labour.

Sarah Teather: We are discussing employment at extremely short notice. I do not wish to labour the point; others have said that the Government are frightened of Catholics in by-elections.  [Interruption.] Did I hear a sharp intake of breath from the Minister? A by-election's timing over which the Government had total control is a poor reason for delaying for three months the passage of other legislation and for introducing this Bill at very short notice—and nor does that aid scrutiny.
	This is the 29th piece of employment legislation that this Government have brought before the House. Nevertheless, it is largely welcome in that it repeals some previous legislation that was highly burdensome and bureaucratic for business. We shall be supporting the Bill's Second Reading, but there are a number of issues on which we would like significant progress to be made in Committee. Some areas will need careful scrutiny, but our principal areas of concern about the Bill are to do with sins of omission.
	Let me begin by acknowledging the changes that we support. The Gibbons review of the Employment Act 2002 and its 2004 consequential regulations clearly stated that the aims of that legislation had simply not been achieved. The original purpose of the legislation—to encourage conciliation as an alternative to a tribunal—had not been successful. As the Government's response to the Gibbons review says, the procedures imposed a high administrative burden, and far from encouraging amicable settlements appeared to have encouraged involvement of lawyers at an early stage. However, that failure masks a more important negative philosophical shift.
	The 2002 Act divided opinion between those who believe that procedure matters in and of itself because it validates an individual's worth, and those who believe that procedure is merely a means to an end. A liberal would say that procedure matters, because treating people fairly matters in and of itself independent of whether the outcome would have been the same. It is very much to be commended that the Government have reviewed the 2002 legislation and are now repealing it, even if their change of mind has been brought about only by unintended side effects rather than a true conversion of principle.
	I welcome the reversion to the Polkey principle, which recognised that fairness does matter—dismissal under such principles may be found to be unfair on procedural grounds. However, the principle also recognises the merits or otherwise of the case, and allows a tribunal to reduce the compensatory part of the award in proportion to the likelihood that dismissal would have gone ahead anyway if correct procedure had been followed. The acceptance by the CBI and others of a reversion to Polkey principles has, however, been dependent on a promise of simplification of the ACAS code of practice. Employers want a code of practice that they can actually follow. The new draft code, which was published during the consideration of the Bill in the other place, will need to be carefully scrutinised in Committee to ensure that it is a genuine simplification and that it is clear. I suspect that a considerable proportion of our time in Committee will be spent in examining that draft code.
	Several Members have spoken about the ASLEF judgment. We acknowledge the changes made following the debate in the other place to specify more clearly the grounds on which a union may prohibit someone from membership on the basis of their affiliation to a political party. While recognising that the abolition of closed shops should give unions greater freedom to decide their own membership, we nevertheless thought that the original wording in the Bill was drawn far too broadly. The new definition adopted in the other place meets many of our original concerns. However, we will also want to re-examine that and explore it further in Committee. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) raised one particular issue relating to previous as well as current membership of a political party.
	Thirdly, we welcome the effort to toughen action against those who fail to pay the minimum wage. The new powers proposed for inspecting officers seem sensible, and the possibility of trying serious cases in the Crown court is also welcome, as it increases the fine possible in serious cases. I, like the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), am disappointed that the Government have not taken the opportunity of this legislation to end the national minimum wage's discrimination against young people through the lower rate. People under the age of 21 do not get a discount in shops for being young, and it is hard to justify why young people should be paid less for doing the same job.
	I am also disappointed that the Government have not used this legislation to deal with the issue of people using tips as an excuse for not paying the national minimum wage. As a consumer, I want to know that any tips I pay are extra money that will go to people who are probably working extremely long hours for the minimum wage. The Minister reassured us that the Government are examining the issue, but I hope that they will do so in time to table amendments in Committee. The Government have the whole summer in which to consider the matter, because according to the programme motion the Committee will not sit until October. I hope that they will work with people in all parties who clearly feel strongly about the issue to introduce a practical means of solving that problem.
	The new formulae for calculating the arrears of employers who fail to meet minimum wage legislation are a welcome step forward. Using the current rather than historical rate of the minimum wage is not only a fairer way of calculating arrears for employees, but gives employers an incentive to settle arrears today rather than to delay until next year. I heard what the Minister said in reply to my intervention about interest rates and tax, but I hope that we may still explore the matter in more detail in Committee to see whether there is a means of getting round the problem. It is unfair that employers are able to have an interest-free loan at the expense of an employee.
	New formulae are all well and good, but the chance of a business being inspected for a breach of national minimum wage legislation remains extremely low. Moreover, even if an employer is inspected and found to be in breach of the law, the chance of their being prosecuted is almost non-existent. Just three of a total of 14,500 or 15,000 cases of arrears have ever been prosecuted—the Minister gave the exact figure in his speech. Why is that figure so low? I would like to think that an amicable result was found in all cases, but that seems highly unlikely.
	The problem of a failure to pay the minimum wage appears to be increasing. The Minister mentioned that the average arrears for each individual is now more than £200, which compares with the previous financial year's considerably lower figure of £130. Enforcement is vital not only for individuals who are inadequately rewarded for their work but, as the Minister mentioned, for employers.

Lorely Burt: Does my hon. Friend agree that certainty of detection and of subsequent prosecution would be two of the most important factors in getting recalcitrant employers to commit to, and to implement, the national minimum wage?

Sarah Teather: I agree with my hon. Friend. Employers who pay the minimum wage, however reluctantly, feel very aggrieved when a competitor down the road undercuts them on price because they are cheating the law. Employers who flout minimum wage legislation often deny other statutory rights, such as the right to paid holiday, statutory sick pay and paid maternity leave—the citizens advice bureaux have found evidence of that in the cases that they have dealt with. Concern about those rights, particularly for temporary and agency workers, lead to pressure on the Government, particularly from some Labour Back Benchers, to equalise rights with those of permanent employees. The trade unions, the Government and the CBI appear to have found a compromise on this matter, and we await legislation in this area in the next parliamentary Session so that we can scrutinise just how the Government intend to deal with it.
	I remain concerned that merely creating new rights will not necessarily yield an improvement for workers unless there is a practical way of enforcing them. I recognise that the Bill strengthens powers to inspect employment agencies, but, in practice, most vulnerable workers who wish to take action against exploitation must battle through the tribunal system, which, for many of them, is not a practical solution in enforcing statutory rights. The system is lengthy, stressful and legalistic, and even when it finds in favour of the employee it may fail to yield a payment to the individual.
	There is an obvious need for an agency that is able to work across fields to tackle issues of non-compliance in a proactive way. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington touched on the issue of information that is permitted to be exchanged in the Bill and whether there is a more proactive means of tackling non-compliance. A number of suggestions have been made, including a broad-based fair employment commission, extending the work already done on the national minimum wage. I wonder whether the Minister's winding-up speech will inform the House as to whether the Government are actively considering that possibility—I know that they have considered it in the past.
	The problem that many workers have with the employment tribunal system is that even if they manage to navigate it and get a ruling in their favour, which is no mean feat, many employers just fail to pay up. Citizens Advice, which works with employees exploited by rogue employers, estimates that it sees about 1,000 cases of unpaid employment awards every year. I have seen such cases in my constituency, and they are incredibly stressful for the individuals concerned. Citizens Advice estimates that across the country the level of non-payment of tribunal awards may actually be as high as one in 10 of the 13,000 monetary awards made by tribunals each year. The only route for claimants in that situation is to take action through the civil courts, but, yet again, that process is complex, time-consuming and often prohibitively expensive.
	For some rogue employers, the knowledge that the enforcement route is so difficult makes non-compliance a gamble worth taking, allowing them to flout the system with near impunity. The cost of the non-payment of awards to individuals is considerable. Citizens Advice estimates that of the 1,000 cases it dealt with in the past financial year, the total value of unpaid awards was in the region of £4.5 million—the sums involved for the individuals concerned are thus considerable.
	In recognition of that problem, the Government made some changes to the system in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Principally, the Act made the registration of non-payment of an award at county court automatic and free, and it also allowed enforcement action to be taken without registration. Those provisions will come into force in April 2009, when this Bill is also due to come into force. Although those changes were welcome, it is not the process of registration of non-payment at the county court that is so difficult for claimants; the problem is the process that follows, which is prohibitively expensive and complex.
	That brings me to my gravest concern about the omissions in the Bill. How clear people's statutory rights are and how efficient the tribunal system is are of no matter if, when the tribunal rules in favour of the claimant, they are simply unable to go the next leg of the journey to wrench the money that they are owed from their employer. The Bill is a serious missed opportunity, and the Government must find a way of giving claimants access to the fruits of the justice that they have already attained.

Si�n Simon: I might have missed it, so could the hon. Lady say a bit about what her Front-Bench team recommend the Government should be doing? She has identified what she sees as an omission, but I would be grateful if she let us know how she would like to see the gap filled.

Sarah Teather: I just mentioned one thingan employment commissionand I am about to move on to the next one, if the hon. Gentleman sits tight and listens. I hope that he will serve on the Public Bill Committee, that we will be able to explore these matters in great detail together and that I might get his support from the Back Benches.
	We intend to examine non-payment in detail in Committee, and I hope the Government will look favourably on the ideas proposed by a number of people, principally Citizens Advice, which has done detailed work on the issue and tackled it on the front line. The issue is really about using the state to take the risk that at the moment is borne by individuals. At the moment, individuals have to pay to go through the county court process. They will get the money back, if they win, but I want the Government to consider whether the state could take on the risk for very low-paid individuals. The state would get the money back, but the burden of risk would be shifted from the individual to the state. NACAB has suggested using High Court enforcement officers.
	There are many approaches to the issue, and I hope that we will be able to have a detailed discussion in Committee about the various methods. I feel strongly that the good aspects of the Bill will not come to fruition without some means of taking the next step. It is an important issue for individuals, and I hope that the Government will consider closing the loophole.
	There are some good aspects to the Bill, but some issues are missing. The principal issue is how we can give individuals the opportunity to claim the money that they have already technically been awarded but cannot get their hands on, and I hope that the Government will consider our amendments in Committee.

Oliver Heald: I first wish to make a general point that is relatively important in the context of clause 4. When I first started appearing before industrial tribunals in 1976 I did so for free, as a trainee lawyer with the Free Representation Unit. In those days, tribunals were very informal, the rules of procedure were limited and the chairman would often be able to decide what sort of evidence he wanted to hear and how. The person representing the employee was often a trade union representative or someone freelike meand the employer would simply send along the personnel director. In that atmosphere, the people thereincluding the members of the tribunalunderstood the workplace and the industrial scene. The three who made up the panelthe employer's representative, the employee's representative and the lawyer who acted as chairmanwere an integral part of that atmosphere, which was that of an industrial jury that decided industrial concerns on behalf of people who all understood the workplace.
	The atmosphere has changed a lot over the years and industrial tribunalsnow employment tribunalshave become much more formal places with more legalism. It was inevitable that that would happen. That area of law was very exciting in the 1970s, because it was constantly changing as new Governments came and went. The  Industrial Relations Law Reports came out every week, so more law was reported in that area than in almost any other. Gradually, the effect of all the new cases and the need for precision ensured the change to a more legalistic environment.
	However, the tripartite decision making has remained throughout, with an employer's representative, an employee's representative and a chairman. That is very important for cases that address issues such as the terms and conditions of employment or questions of unfair dismissal. Once the employer has shown the reason for dismissal, it is up to the industrial jury to decide whether the decision to dismiss was reasonable. The issue of reasonableness in that forum is well decided by a tribunal made up of representatives who understand the workplace. Anything that erodes that approach would be a bad thing.
	So when clause 4 of the Bill talks of fast-track decision making without a hearing, alarm bells begin to ring. Will that mean that the chairman decides cases on his own? Last year, we had a consultation document, Transforming tribunals, from the Ministry of Justice, and chapter 9 included suggestions that employment tribunals had scope for more decision making by chairmen alone, as it would not always be necessary to involve the lay members.
	The issue was taken up in the other place by Lord Wedderburn, who pressed the Minister on it. I wish to do the same and press the Minister to confirm that the Government have no intention of cutting back on tripartite decision making by the tribunal on important issues such as reasonableness of dismissal and terms and conditions of employment. The lay members add something to the decision making on those issues and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on that point.
	Clauses 1 to 3 abolish the 2004 regulations, encourage more voluntary conciliation and support ACAS with extra funding. I shall give some of the history behind the boom in cases that led to the Employment Act 2002. In the early days of the industrial tribunal, it had a much more limited jurisdiction with far fewer cases. Even in 1988, there were only about 29,000 cases a year. By 2000, that had grown to 130,000 cases a year, and something needed to be done to encourage employers and employees to try to solve their problems without necessarily ending up at an employment tribunal.
	One of the great motors for an increase in the number of cases was the Polkey  v. A. E. Dayton Services Ltd decision in 1987, because it said that if there was any significant procedural irregularity in the way in which a case was dealt with by the employer, there was an entitlement to a finding of unfair dismissal. If it was only a technical matter, however, the tribunal could decide that, despite the procedural irregularity and the consequent unfair dismissal, the compensation could be set at nothing or very low.
	The decision meant that cases that would previously have been rejected on their merits were pursued on procedural grounds. The Conservative Government looked at the issue in the mid-1990s and published a Green Paper in 1994 that considered the options for dealing with disputes. It had two main suggestions. First, it suggested that ACAS should have a conciliation scheme and a system of voluntary referrals to arbitration. Secondly, if employees had not followed the internal grievance procedure, or employers had not followed their internal procedures, they should not have the right to go to a tribunal. In other words, it was vital to both employees' and employers' defences to have pursued internal remedies first.
	In response it was argued that that approach would cause complexity and delay in many cases. After much thought, the then Minister, Ian Lang, decided not to require the internal procedures to be completed. When the Labour Government came in, they looked at the consultation document and the responses and made the same decision. I cannot remember who the Minister was, but in 1997 the incoming Government decided against that change.
	It was therefore a surprisenot to mention a mistakewhen the Government, in introducing the 2002 Act, decided to go ahead and insist that internal procedures should be completed to provide grounds for a claim or a defence to a claim. Many warned at the time that that would lead to complexity and delay. Instead of all the evidence being heard in one go by a tribunal, a two-part procedure was necessary. The first part of the process was deciding whether a case was procedurally acceptable because the internal procedures had been completed by the employer or employee. Then another hearing was needed to decide whether the dismissal was unfair or not.
	The effect of that was predictable, and so it came to pass. From quite early onwithin a year of the change's implementationorganisations such as the CBI and some unions were saying that it was a good idea in policy terms, but that the way in which it had been implemented was heavy handed, bureaucratic, prescriptive, over-regulatory and did not work. The number of cases that were delayed went up and became a big problem.
	I remember that when I was the Front-Bench spokesman for legal issues, the chairmen of tribunals would come to me and say, Look, you have to do something about these 2004 regulations because they are snarling up the whole system. Although they were a good idea in principle, in practice they are turning out to be a nightmare. I asked a number of parliamentary questions on the issuein fact, last summer, after the Gibbons report came out, I reached a crescendo with about 20 questions, all asking whether the Government would do something about the situation.
	Now that I have given that background, I want to tell the House that I welcome clauses 1 to 3, which get rid of the idea that there must be a first hearing about the procedural aspects before one can get down to the real thingin other words, that it has to be proved that the procedures have been followed internally before a claim can be mounted. As far as the other side of the coin is concerned, though, the idea of having conciliation and some ability to talk and to try to reach a decision on the claim between employer and employee before the matter gets out of the workplace is a good idea.
	I welcome the fact that ACAS is getting extra funds, but does the Minister think that there is room for mediators and others to be involved rather than just ACAS. What is the Government's position on alternative dispute resolution in that area? Is it that it should just be a matter for ACAS and that the 37 million will do it, or are the Government saying that they would be prepared to have independent mediators and others involved to try to tackle some of the cases at an earlier stage?
	My overall position is that I give a warm welcome to the first few clauses of the Bill, which are long overdue. I have no doubt that the mistake was made with the best of intentions but I am pleased that it is being remedied, and I know that everybody in the employment tribunals will heave a sigh of relief.

Katy Clark: I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about the role of lay members in tribunal proceedings. One of the strengths of the employment tribunals has been that those who have active experience of industryon the worker and trade union side and also on the employer sidehave had a strong role in the proceedings and the move towards a very legalistic approach would not be welcomed. There is concern from all parties that the role of lay members may be watered down, which would be a huge mistake.
	I urge the Minister not to listen to the advice given by the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). We remember that the Conservatives did not vote for the national minimum wage and argued that its introduction would lead to higher unemployment. That has not proved to be the case.

John McDonnell: Before my hon. Friend moves off the issue of lay members, can we all place on the record the work that Lord Bill Wedderburn has done over the years to protect the role of lay members and the astute advice on tribunals, both legal and political, that he has given to the Government?

Katy Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
	As I was saying, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 was, of course, a controversial and contested piece of legislation. It is one of the flagship policies introduced by Labour since 1997. I welcome the provisions that will strengthen the enforcement of the regulations.
	The truth, however, is that other than the drip, drip of employment legislation that we have heard about, Britain has the most restrictive labour and employment laws in Europe. Trade unions in Britain have the fewest rights of those in any country in Europe. As has been said, our right to be members of trade unions and to take part in trade union activity dates from less than 100 years ago, when the Labour party was created. One of the first steps that the initial 29 Labour MPs took was to drive through a private Member's Bill to overturn the House of Lords decision on Taff Vale. We have already heard references to Lord Wedderburn and other leading employment experts, who have regularly articulated that our rights in labour law now are worse than they were 100 years ago. We should not be proud of that.
	Of course, new laws are not the only way of dealing with exploitation in the workplace. If we look at history and at the situation now, we see that one of the most effective ways of fighting a cause in the workplace is to join a trade union. We know that trade union members earn significantly more than non-trade union members. They have better pay, better pensions and better health and safety in the workplace.
	It is appropriate that those of us in this place should make it very clear that, as a public policy matter, we believe that trade unions are a force for good in society. One reason for that is that we have to recognise the huge imbalance of power in society. In particular, we must recognise the huge imbalance of power in the workplace between the employer and employee. I welcome the work that has led more than 100 MPs to sign early-day motion 1604, which calls for the Bill to be amended to include aspects of the Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill. We have heard already from my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about that Bill.
	I welcome the clause that lifts restrictions on trade unions and the amendment of the rules on the exclusion or expulsion of individuals on the grounds of membership of a political party. The clause is in the Bill because of active attempts by fascists in Britain to infiltrate trade unions, when, of course, fascist ideology runs counter to the beliefs of trade unions. If we consider the activities of fascists who have gained power throughout the world, we see that trade unionists are one of the first groups that they target, victimise, exploit, jail and kill. Trade unions are saying that they do not feel that it is reasonable that they should be forced to take people who are members of fascist parties into their membership, because they know that the only reason those organisations target them is to undermine their core values and beliefs.
	We need to look more broadly at trade unions and their rule books. Britain has the most restrictive labour laws in Europe, which means that we have the most rules that govern how trade unions behave. The Conservatives, who were in power for 18 years, introduced most the legislation that led to the regulation of trade unions. It is interesting to hear Conservative Members talk about burdens on business, because they put excessive burdens on trade unions. Trade unionists tell us that the rules under which they are required to operate are not just excessively bureaucratic and expensive, but make it practically impossible for them to carry out their activities lawfullythe activities their members ask them to carry out. The Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill proposed simplification of the law on trade unions, because it is not appropriate that the state should lay down in such detail the requirements to be followed every time a trade union takes a ballot on industrial action.
	Current provisions make it impossible, in effect, for legal industrial action to take place. However, most cases are not examined in detail; evidence is not examined in detail by a body such as a court or tribunal. Those who have had to take part in such processes would not dispute the fact that existing legislation is excessively prohibitive.

Rob Marris: I make this intervention as someone whose constituency Labour party receives moneys from the trade union solicitors, Thompsons, for whom I used to work and with whom I am proud to be still associated. Instead of a panoply of laws on how trade unions areif they jump through certain hoopsexempt from creating the tort of inducing breach of contract, for example, by industrial action, would it not be simpler to abolish the tort altogether? We could thus get rid of the panoply of regulation.

Katy Clark: I agree. My central point is that trade unions should be able to regulate their own rule books. Members should be allowed democratically to decide the rules under which they operate. I welcome the Bill's provisions, but I ask the Government to look again at the issues I have raised and consider simplifying the operation of trade unions.
	The Minister for Energy will be aware of the negative impact of recent European Court of Justice decisions on trade union freedom and collective bargaining, which will no doubt be debated on other occasions. We need to look at those issues again; the principle should be that the nation state determines rules on the operation of trade unions and the right to strike, which is not a legal right in the UK.
	Much of the Bill relates to the national minimum wage, on which a number of proposals have been put to the Government. I suspect they will be the basis of amendments to the measure. The first relates to exemptions for young workers, which have already been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. The Government have asked the Low Pay Commission to look into the issue again, but we need to say strongly in this place that we view an annual wage of 6,630 for a 37 and a half hour week as a poverty pay rate. We want a rate for the job.
	Furthermore, people should not be discriminated against on the basis of age. A person doing the same job as an older person is entitled to the same wage. In my constituency, I have heard of a number of cases of young workers supervising older workersfor example, in the hospitality industryyet the supervisor is on a lower wage, because at present that is justifiable legally.

David Anderson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. A person could start an apprenticeship at 16 and become a fully trained craftsperson by the age of 20, yet they would still be paid less than the minimum wage, which is nonsense.

Katy Clark: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a strong case that there should be no discrimination on the basis of age alone.
	On previous occasions, I have had a number of discussions with Ministers about exemptions for seafarers to national minimum wage legislation. The Minister for Energy will be aware that the current legal position is that foreign national seafarers are entitled to the national minimum wage on UK registered ships when they are in port or in internal waters. The result is that foreign workers on British ferries are being paid wages equivalent to 1, 1.50 and 2 an hour. Examples have been provided to the Government on a number of occasions. All workers on a UK registered vessel in UK internal watersfor example, a Caledonian MacBrayne ship sailing to the Western Isleswould be entitled to the minimum wage, but that would not be the case if they were on a non-UK registered vessel making the same trip.

Rob Marris: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's proposition, but it is incredibly difficult to legislate for such things. For example, a similar situation might involve a trucking company based in Poland, but owned by a UK company, which could be sending HGVs to the UK driven by Polish nationals resident in Poland who were earning less than the UK minimum wage. These things are difficult.

Katy Clark: I do not accept what my hon. Friend says. Such situations are clearly difficult to regulate, but the role of Government is to grapple with them and come up with solutions. We are talking about ferry routes that serve communities, whether the Scottish islands, Hull or Rotterdam. They are not operated by fly-by-night employers or industries; they provide services daily.

John McDonnell: Another irony is that even though such ships are not UK flagged, a number of them still receive the benefits of tonnage tax, which is provided specifically to promote the employment of UK seafarers and fair employment generally.

Katy Clark: Indeed. My hon. Friend highlights the fact that state subsidies are, in effect, underwriting exploitation. From the point of view of British resident workers, it is not acceptable that such mechanisms are being used to undercut their wages and conditions.

Angus MacNeil: As a resident of the Western Isles, where the Caledonian MacBrayne ferries operate, I can tell the House that many other aspects of legislation, such as the licensing laws and health and safety provisions, are implemented on the ferries, so why should that not also be true of employment legislation? I fully support what the hon. Lady is saying.

Katy Clark: I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman. As we have discussed on previous occasions, it is not just ferry workers who are affected by the exemptions, but those working in the fishing industry and those who supply the offshore oil industry. I ask the Government to look at the issue again. It was a commitment in our 1997 manifesto, so as a matter of principle we should look at the exemptions to the national minimum wage and do everything we can to close them. The reality is that the national minimum wage has been one of the most effective measures in fighting poverty and inequality in this country, and the Bill provides a real opportunity to close the loopholes that remain.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Lady will know from the constituency that she represents that the UK used to have one of the largest merchant fleets in the world. With the best of intentions, British Governments introduced employment and tax regulations that encouragedindeed, forced, in many casesBritish shipping firms to go offshore and to use flags of convenience. Does she not think that some of the proposals that she is outlining will have exactly the same effect on the very small British fleet that is left?

Katy Clark: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is why the tonnage tax was introduced. I am sure that the Minister will comment on the fact that British shipping has been a great success story for the Government. Such issues are often raised as red herrings, and that is why I focused on the examples that I used in raising the issue with the Government. I have specifically focused on ferries, because those that run between Scotland and some of the islands are good examples. If a ferry leaves Ardrossan and goes to Arran, all the workers will be covered by the national minimum wage, but if that ferry leaves Ardrossan and goes to Belfast, they will not be covered. We should address that anomaly, and I hope that the Government will look again at that issue. They are holding detailed discussions with the trade unions that represent some of the work force in those sectors, and I hope that the Government propose a practical solution during the consideration of the Bill.

Rob Marris: I sense that my hon. Friend might be moving on. Does she see anything in the Bill that relates to the minimum wage that addresses the scandal of tipsI do notand the fact that some employers can effectively steal tips from their staff? To me and many other trade unionists, that seems completely unacceptable and certainly against the moral spirit of the legislation on the national minimum wage, if not against the letter of the law. Does she, like me, want much stronger legislation to deal with that scandal?

Katy Clark: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend highlights yet another loophole, and I do not believe that that was the intention of those who campaigned so hard for national minimum wage legislation over so many generations. Of course, hospitality industry staff are some of the most exploited and least organised, because traditionally trade unions have not been powerful in the sector. We should look again at that issue, because it highlights the need for one of the British trade union movement's other calls in asking the Government to consider class actions in relation not just to equal pay cases, which we will discuss in the equality Bill, but to employment matters such as the national minimum wage. The reality is that the most vulnerable workers in our society find it very difficult to stand up for themselves, and they fear victimisation. There is therefore a strong case for looking at how organisations such as trade unions can take collective class actions when the law is breached. My hon. Friend gives a good example in relation to those who work in the hospitality industry.

Angus MacNeil: I should like to emphasise that one of the reasons why many people give tips is that they are aware of exactly the point the hon. Lady makes and they try to help, so it is all the more galling when they realise that their tips are used to make up the wages.

Katy Clark: Indeed. People have become increasingly aware of the fact that, unless they leave cash, the money might not get to the right person. However, most of us would presume that any tip we leave would automatically go to the person whom we intended. As a matter of contract, our intention is that the person should get the money, so that is where it should end up, and it should not be used to subsidise employers who do not want to pay the full minimum wage. There is a very strong case for looking again at that matter, as such things were not originally intended.
	I broadly welcome the Bill, particularly the steps to enforce the national minimum wage legislation, which has been a huge achievement of the Government, but I ask them to look again at some of the matters that colleagues and I have raised.

Rob Marris: My hon. Friend will have considerable experience of this matter as a former trade union solicitor. Would she care to say anything about the Bill's initial clauses on the statutory dispute resolution procedure, which was contained in the Employment Act 2002? I served on the Standing Committee that considered that Bill, and several Members, including me, pointed out to the then Minister that that procedure would be unworkable. Sadly, that has proved to be so. I wonder whether my hon. Friend will share with the House her experiences in that regard.

Katy Clark: I hope that I made it clear in my initial comments that the more simple a law is, the more likely it is that it will be effective. One of the best examples, which is often cited, is the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which is a very short piece of legislation that lays down a principle. One of the problems that has developed since the 1970s is that employment law has become increasingly complex, whereas we need basic principles. Unfortunately, the legal professionI say this as someone who used to be involved in that capacityhas attempted to look for loopholes and complex arguments to opt out of basic principles. We should fight for the basic principle that the Government have laid down of a national minimum wage that should apply to all work forces and to all people, irrespective of gender, race, age or other matters, and I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Richard Shepherd: The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) made mention of 1997 and the body of law that the Government introduced to affect employment relations and so on subsequently. Indeed, I am grateful, too, to the Government, because one of their manifesto commitments during the 1997 election was to afford protection to the whistleblower.
	The concept of the whistleblower owes much, of course, to Members of the previous Conservative-dominated Parliament, but I am mindful that my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), came up with an idea that he gave to those who are involved in Public Concern at Work, and he asked them to make proposals for legislation. Those proposals were taken up by the then Opposition, and the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) introduced a private Member's Bill, which had the support of a remarkable man who was a shadow employment Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who helped to push very hard for the proposal. It also had all-party support, including a lot of support from Conservative Back Benchers. I learned then and subsequently that the power of the Administration, often unbeknown to Ministers, is quite something. I commend the Government's support in their manifesto for the concept of whistleblowing.
	I came what seemed like 140th in the private Member's Bill ballot, but the Government very generously provided all the access and support needed to try to progress the matter. Indeed, the Bill passed through this House, and I owe something to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the then shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, for not objecting to it. I also owe a lot of gratitude to a past leader of my party, who is now showing great instincts on social justice, for supporting the Bill from the beginning. The Bill was taken through the House of Lords by another distinguished man, Lord Borrie, who worked hard with Public Concern at Work and all the people there who had made effort, raised money and tried to advance the cause.
	The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 was intended to promote responsible whistleblowing. Although it arose from a private Member's Bill, it received strong support from the Government, especially from the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield. It was backed by business, unions and regulators.
	Although PIDA forms part of employment legislation, the policy behind it closely follows the jurisprudence developed by the courts over the past two centuries on public interest disclosure. Accordingly, the Act provides strong protection to workers who raise concerns about wrongdoing that threatens the public interest. It provides that protection most readily when the concern is raised with the employer in good faith. It also protects disclosures made to prescribed regulatory bodies, whether or not they have been raised internally, when the concern has a substantial basis. It also protects wider disclosures, including to the police, Members of Parliament and the media, when the disclosure is reasonable and justified. Accordingly, the legislation was designed to encourage employees to raise, and employers to address, serious concerns about crime, fraud, danger, abuse and other harm to the public interest.
	At the time when the Act was passed, we the promotersand, I think, most peopleunderstood that information about claims made under the Act would be on the public record. That was important because it would help to promote openness, to discourage specious claims and to encourage an employer to deal properly with any serious concern that was raised with it. Such openness was also necessary to monitor how PIDA was operating.
	After PIDA's commencement, the employment tribunals service and the Department of Trade and Industry denied the charity Public Concern at Work all information about claims brought under the Act. With reluctance, the matter was put before the High Court, which found in favour of the charity in April 2000. Mr. Justice Jackson concluded:
	It is sometimes embarrassing for a party to employment tribunal proceedings to have certain details of his claim made public. On the other hand, claimants in the court suffer similar embarrassment. That is part of the price which all citizens pay in order to have the benefit of an open system of justice...It has always been the policy of the law that, so far as possible, litigation should be conducted under the public gaze and under the critical scrutiny of all who wish to report legal proceedings...The principle of open justice applies to employment tribunals with just as much force as it applies to court proceedings.
	While the then DTI claimed that it would appeal the decision, it introduced, without consultation or announcement, temporary regulations to reverse the High Court ruling. It did so on the day before a summer recess, so I advise all Members in the Chamber to be very interested about what is listed on the Order Paper in the two days before the recess. Statutory instruments that come into effect within 45 or 60 days that are put down at that time may receive no parliamentary scrutiny. Although, at the time, we appealed to try to block those regulations, and the Government promised that they would be debated, they came into effect before we could debate them.
	Although the DTI substantially agreed to consult on whether claims under PIDA should be treated differently from those under other employment laws, the promised consultation did not take place. As part of the dispute resolution regime that is being dismantled in the Bill, regulations were extended to remove all information from the public record about employment tribunals claims.
	The charity Public Concern at Work forwarded a complaint through me to the parliamentary ombudsman, which finally reported in 2005. The report is perhaps the most damning that I have ever read about the conduct of officials in a Department of State. It is truly shaming. It was not published in the usual way, whereby every Member gets a copy, but put on Public Concern at Work's website.
	The ombudsman criticised the DTI's handling of the matter because it was never honest with the High Court or the public about why it objected to information about tribunal claims being publicly available; because it launched a costly appeal that it had no intention of pursuing so that it could overturn the High Court decision in secret through regulations; because it repeatedly misled Public Concern at Work to try to head off all public criticism; because it failed to consider the public interest or to realise that whistleblowing claims
	might involve matters of very great public interest;
	because it issued a one-sided and unfair consultation in breach of Government rules, ignoring powerful arguments for openness; and because it blocked parliamentary scrutiny by giving assurances that it failed to keep. I cannot think of anything more damning that has been said in an ombudsman's report about the conduct of a Department. As a result of it, the DTI agreed to apologise and to pay 130,000 compensation to Public Concern at Work for misleading it and wasting its time.
	One must ask what the damage to the public interest is. Employment tribunals statistics record that, in 2005-06, some 1,015 claims under PIDA were disposed of. Some 283 of those were disposed of after a hearing, and so, under the rules, information about those cases is on record. However, the rules mean that all information about the other 730 claims72 per cent. of all whistleblowing claimsremains shrouded in secrecy.
	Other than the numerical statistics, which can be obtained only by making a specific request under freedom of information legislation, there is nothing on public record about more than 70 per cent. of whistleblowing claims. There is no information about the nature of the concern, be it a crime, danger, abuse or other wrongdoing. There is no information about who was at risk, be they consumers, passengers, patients, taxpayers, shareholders or fellow workers. There is no information about whom the concern was raised with, be that a manager, a compliance officer, the chief executive officer, the audit committee, a regulator or someone else. There is no information about the employer's response to the concern, whether it was ignored, investigated or hushed up, and whether it was claimed that it was misconceived, well founded or put right. There is also no information about the alleged reprisal, whether it was carried out by managers or colleagues, and whether it was dismissal or victimisation.
	That is the case even though the claims are brought in a public forum, at public expense, and under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Other than the two parties, no one, not even a Minister, is able lawfully to find out from the employment tribunals records whether, for example, a whistleblowing claim has been brought in relation to problems of clostridium difficile or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at a hospital, even though that issue has fuelled public and ministerial anxiety about the NHS and anxiety within it. Additionally, one cannot find out whether a claim relates to a pre-existing problem with the fuel system of the Nimrod aircraft that crashed in Afghanistan with the tragic loss of 14 servicemen.
	Such secrecy undermines the public interest and PIDA in two essential ways. It enables and encourages unscrupulous employers to buy off genuine whistleblowers, rather than address the underlying malpractice. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 expressly encourages employees to raise whistleblowing concerns internally, so that responsible employers can deal with them properly and without delay, so it is not an imaginary problem. Contrary to Parliament's intention when it passed the Act, the current rules have created a scheme under which crime, company fraud, public dangers and tax evasion can be readily hushed up, contrary to the public interest.
	That secrecy damages responsible business, as it enables and encourages unscrupulous employees to bring spurious claims. A report in the  Financial Times on 18 September 2007 quoted the City firm, Nomura, which warned:
	The whistleblowing legislation was designed to protect employees who, in good faith, raise legitimate concerns of wrongdoing in the workplace. Its growing use by white men as a litigation tactic when in dispute with the City employers, suggests the legislation is being abused.
	The secrecy that now exists means that it is not possible to assess whether that claim is well founded. That is the substance of the anxiety that caused the right hon. Member for MakerfieldI see that he is presentto start on a course of action to try to bring about structural change in respect of whistleblowers.
	I know that the Department has again been in consultation with Public Concern at Work. All I ask is that the Department gives serious consideration to any amendments tabled to do with the publication of whistleblowing cases. Part of the difficulty is that there have been so many changes of junior Ministers in the Department that the collective memory of the Government or Executive, as opposed to the Administration, is somehow lost. Many undertakings have been given, and it has been said that there was no objection in principle. The Minister for Energy should read the ombudsman's report, and people in the Department should re-read it, or read it, if they have not yet had the opportunity to do so. The problems can, and should, be corrected, and the Bill is the vehicle with which to do so.

Charles Walker: I am grateful to be called to speak on this interesting Bill. Before I came to the House, until 2001actually, I did not come here until 2005. I would have liked to have come here in 2001, but unfortunately, when I stood against the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) in 2001, I added 2,500 to his majority, instead of reducing it. He is grateful for that, and we get on very well. Until 2001, I was a director of an employment agency called Blue Arrow. In the late 1990s, I remember having some fairly testing meetings with the right hon. Member for Macclesfield

Ian McCartney: Makerfield.

Charles Walker: I apologise. I had some very testing meetings with the right hon. Gentleman, and to be fair some of the practices taking place in the employment agency industry were unacceptable. Quite rightly, he outlawed them, and hopefully they no longer take place. However, I accept that there is a small rump of people operating in employment agencies who let everyone else down. I do not want the employment agency sector to be tarred with the same brush as those whose business behaviour is still outside the bounds of the acceptable.
	Employment agencies play an important part in our labour market. The Government recognise that, and very early on after introducing the new deal they included employment agencies among the bodies placing difficult people who had been out of the workplace for a long time. My party recognised that employment agencies play an important role, too, and when we form the next Government we will hopefully pledge to use employment agencies to help people get back into work. Employment agencies are extremely good at helping the economy to flex in response to changes in the market. There can be sudden increases in demand, and employment agencies are very good at identifying a labour pool and filling that demand. Employment agencies are very useful for allowing women who have been out of the workplace for a number of years to re-enter it. They are very useful for placing youngsters in the workplaceyes, in temporary jobs, but jobs that allow them to prove their worth to a future employer.

Katy Clark: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a great deal of work has been done by Labour Members, and by the trade union movement, to campaign for fair employment rights for agency workers. Does he support that?

Charles Walker: The hon. Lady makes a very interesting point, and that was a useful intervention. I will come on to the issue in a moment. As I have said, employment agencies provide a useful route back to work for people who are often hard to place in work, and who struggle to find a permanent job because they have been out of the labour market for too long, or do not have the experience to get into the labour market in a substantive, permanent position.
	I have an admission to make: if I had been a Member of Parliament when the minimum wage was introduced, I probably would have voted against it. I do not know for certain that I would have done so, because I was not here, but at the timeas the right hon. Member for Makerfield knows, because I sent him some papers on the subjectmy instinct would have been to vote against it. However, I would have been wrong to have done so. The minimum wage has proved to be a step in the right direction. It has allowed people dignity at work, and why should the taxpayer subsidise bad employers? That brings me on to my next issue of concern

Ian McCartney: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject completely and forgets to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark), let me put the point another way. If, in the future, a Conservative Government were in a position to sign the European directive on temporary agency workers, would he advocate signing it?

Charles Walker: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the agency workers directive. That directive has been mooted in Europe for about the past 10 years, and for nine of those years his Government have made a very good case on why we should not sign up to it. Their case has been very convincing; they said that we did not need it in this country, and that it would have a negative impact on the labour market and would reduce employability. That must be the case, or it would have been accepted five years ago. If one were cynicalI am notone might think that the sudden embracing of the working time directive had more to do with the need to access trade union funding for future political campaigns than with the need to improve the lot of the down-trodden worker. Far be it from me to suggest that. I hope that answers the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Katy Clark: The question that the hon. Gentleman is being asked is whether he supports the discrimination that takes place against agency workers, who do not get the same sick pay, holiday pay or other entitlements as other workers doing the same job. Will he respond to that?

Charles Walker: I probably will not give the hon. Lady the answer that she is looking for, but I fully bought into her Government's reasons for not signing up to the directive. I was convinced by their arguments on why it would be a bad idea for the UK to sign up to it. I have gone along with those arguments for nine years. The Government have changed their mind, and they need to put forward the arguments, to me and to others, on why the change of course is good. I leave it to the Minister, when he winds up, to make the argument in favour of the country signing the working time directive. If his arguments are good enough and convince me, I will certainly join the hon. Lady in the Lobby to vote in support of the working time directive. However, it is incumbent on the Minister to persuade me that I need to be there.
	I accept that the minimum wage was a good idea, but I am still concerned about the fact that we tax people who earn the minimum wage. I know that that is outside the ambit of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall not try your patience by speaking on the issue for more than 30 seconds. The minimum wage gives people a salary of about 11,000 a year, but as soon as they earn 5,000 or 5,500, they start paying tax on their earnings, and then have their money laundered back to them in the form of tax credits. That is not right, and it perhaps robs people of their dignity.
	I mentioned my concerns about the hospitality industry to the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs, who opened the debate. It is disgraceful that when I add 5 or 10 to a bill at a restaurant, and pay on a credit card because I do not have any cash on me, that money can be used to make up the wage of the person serving me. That is wrong, and most people in this countryapart from the few who own restaurantsagree. As the Government struggle to become more popular with the wider electorate, it would be good for them to seize on the issue. The practice is wrong, and they would have the support of the vast majority of the British public if they addressed it. I am not sure whether that would make up the 19 per cent. deficit in the polls, but it would be a good start.

Si�n Simon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people should not make the mistake of thinking that by leaving a tip in cash they are necessarily ensuring that it will go directly to the worker concerned? Even when tips are left in cash, unscrupulous employers still find ways to divert that income stream to themselves.

Charles Walker: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am sorry if I misled the House and anybody watching by suggesting that if people leave cash it is more likely to find its way into the pockets of the person who served their table. I would hope that the cash would be put in that person's pocket before the avaricious restaurant owner got his or her hands on it. Any restaurant chain that carries out the practice deserves to be named and shamed. I really wish and hope that we get to grips with the issue extremely soon, whichever political party is involved.
	I turn briefly to the issue of tribunal claims. It concerns me greatly when someone who has been disadvantaged in the workplace and is successful in their claim at an employment tribunal then has to wait monthssometimes longerto receive the money that they are owed. These people have mortgages, families, outgoings and other costs that need to be met. They will often not have a job, because they have been removed from their previous job unfairly. When a tribunal award is made, we need to make sure that the money is forthcoming quickly.
	I did not want to be partisan in this debate, but I am going to be. I am a proud member of Amicus-Unite, a trade union. Like the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark), I believe that the trade unions make a positive impact in our day-to-day lives, and we are a better country for having them. I do not want to go against the will of the House, but I have deep concern about British National party members being allowed to join trade unions. From my time in Broxbourne, I know how the BNP operates. I have run a three-year campaign against it that has by and large been successful; we removed the BNP councillor whom I inherited when I was selected for my seat.
	The BNP operates outside the normal boundaries of acceptable political and democratic behaviour. Its campaigns are nasty and personal. I know that for a fact, because I have been on the receiving end of a number of them. A number of Members here will have given some time to campaigning in the London assembly elections. The literature that the BNP was putting around in those elections was hateful and despicable. It was really unpleasant stuff. Anyone who dares to criticise the BNP, as I do and other brave Members do in their constituencies, is subject to a torrent of abuse and hateto national campaigns of abuse and hate.
	Letters were sent to my office and my local newspaper, and e-mails were sent from wherever in the country I dared to stand up and speak out against the BNP. A low point came in the local elections. My local newspaper ran a poll about who people were going to vote for. The BNP, of course, organised a telephone campaign and a newspaper called me up and said, Mr. Walker, 52 per cent. of your constituents are going to vote BNP in the local elections. How do you feel about that? I said, of course, that it was total nonsenseand guess what? I was proved right.
	I fundamentally believe that the BNP has no place in any organisation of which I am a member, be it the Conservative party or a trade union. I received this from a BNP supporter:
	I note with interest your recent and misguided comments regarding The British National Party...You call yourself a Tory, yet are absurdly a member of a Trade Union. You call yourself British, yet clearly despise our Islands...Did you know that your namesake was the first man to be executed after the State of Illinois reinstated the death penalty? A fitting fact, you'll no doubt agree.
	Have a good day Mr Walker.
	The writer had also implied that I was being watched. That is the BNP that I have come to know and that operates outside the normal boundaries of political discourse. I accept that, at the moment, many people, for whatever reason, are voting for the BNPto catch the attention of politicians, to poke us in the eye, to get us to sit up and listen to their concerns. However, voting for the BNP is in a different league from being a member of the BNP, which is a malevolent organisation. Personally, I would not want a member or ex-member of the BNP in my political party, my association or my trade union. There is no place for that party in membership organisations.

Russell Brown: It is always good to follow a brother. I should declare that I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union section of Unite; perhaps the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and I do have one or two things in common somewhere along the line.
	I applaud this Employment Bill. It reforms the law on workplace dispute resolution and unfair dismissal and, thankfully, introduces increased penalties and enforcement powers relating to the national minimum wage and agency standards. It also increases compensation awards for workers whose employers make unlawful and unauthorised wage deductions or fail to pay statutory redundancy pay. I am sure that those in the Chamber and beyond are all aware of examples of unscrupulous employers in our communities who are, frankly, exploiting the situation with agency workers and taking each and every advantage to make deductions from people's earnings.
	There are EU workers, including Poles and Lithuanians, in my constituency. Some of those people have had a torrid time. They have worked exceedingly hard for more than 40 hours a week. They work every minute that God gives themsometimes 50, 60 or 70 hours a week. All sorts of deductions are made, whether for travel support or accommodation support. When it comes to pay-day, they get a pitiful wage for the work that they do.
	The Bill also revises the rules on the exclusion and expulsion of union members, following the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the ASLEF case. The TUC welcomes the proposals to strengthen the law against unfair dismissal and the new penalties for rogue employers who flout the national minimum wage. It also welcomes the creation of the fairer method of dealing with national minimum wage arrears owed to workers, which ensures that they do not lose out as a result of underpayment by employers.
	I was one of the Committee members who helped introduce the national minimum wage, under the leadership of my right hon. and good Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). That was an exciting time. Despite what others say now, it is worth remembering exactly what happened on the occasions when we sat through the night. One Tuesday, our sitting started at 4.30 in the afternoon and finished at 1 o'clock on Wednesday lunchtime. I recollect some interesting times being chaired by our late and good friend, Gwyneth Dunwoody, who kindly helped to guide us through the night. On the following Thursday, we started at 4.30 in the afternoon and finished at 6.30 on Friday morning. Unbeknown to many of us, no Committee on any Bill in this House had ever sat for as long as 4.30 in the afternoon to 1 o'clock the next day. It came as news to us all at 1 o'clock on the Wednesday that we were still apparently working Tuesday hours. I will never know why that was the case.
	The Tories were opposed to the Bill. The Liberal Democrats wanted regional variations for the national minimum wage. However, the whole point of the Bill was to ensure fairness right across the country.

Lorely Burt: The hon. Gentleman says that he wishes to see fairness right across the country; I am sure that everyone in this Chamber would aspire to that. However, if we compare a national minimum wage paid to somebody who lives in London with that paid to someone who lives in Liverpool, does he agree that its buying power varies tremendously?

Russell Brown: Absolutely; I would not disagree in the slightest. However, the hon. Lady's party wanted to introduce regional variations on what we currently have. In other words, in my constituency, people in the neighbouring Scottish borders region would have been paid less, which would have reduced the value and purchasing capacity of that pay.

Ian McCartney: It might be interesting to the citizens of Liverpool that the Liberal Democrats, who control the council there, are into wage cuts for low-paid workers in Liverpool, as they were into wage cuts in the Bill that introduced the minimum wage. It is very important that there is a national minimum wage, and the way to increase it is to join a trade union and have protected negotiating rights. It is not acceptable that someone in Liverpool or the north or south of Scotland who works for a company operating throughout Britainsay, a hamburger chainis paid less than someone doing the same job in the south-east of England. That is a ridiculous claim by the Liberal Democrats.

Russell Brown: I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend.

John McDonnell: May I place it on the record that if it was inappropriate to have regional variations on the minimum wage, it is equally inappropriate for the Government to introduce regional pay bargaining in the courts service? We will need to consider that again because of the inequities that will be introduced.

Russell Brown: I say to my hon. Friend, who, like me, comes from a trade union background, that I wholeheartedly support national wage agreements. We need to do our utmost, especially at the current time, to continue to operate on the basis of national pay bargaining.

Lorely Burt: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that 5.20 an hour is a living wage for somebody who lives in London? The point that I was trying to make is that people in London should have more, not that anyone from elsewhere in the country should have less.

Russell Brown: We have moved on from the 5.20 an hour that we had previously, and thankfully we have moved on from the 3.60. There is the London weighting, as has been indicated. The hon. Lady's colleagues fought hard to try to introduce regional variations for the rest of the country when the Bill was going through Committee, and thankfully they were defeated.

Jeremy Corbyn: I support what my hon. Friend says. Speaking as a former union organiser in London, we always strongly supported national wage negotiations, and still do. Beyond that, we negotiated a London living supplement. This is not about regional negotiations or pay variationsit is a totally different animal, and that seems to be lost on some Members of this House.

Russell Brown: If anyone knows what lies behind all that, my hon. Friend does; he is exactly right in what he says.
	I would hate to leave out our Scottish National party colleagues. During the two extremely long Committee sittings that we had when pushing through the national minimum wage, allegations were made that SNP Members had gone to bed. I have to tell the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) that his friend, Alasdair Morgan from Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, disappeared throughout the night on both those occasions.

Angus MacNeil: As the hon. Gentleman's memory is so great, were all the Labour Members present all night? I have no idea, as it happened long before I was here. I note, however, that when it came to Third Reading, his name was not on the voting record. Would he like to explain that?

Russell Brown: Yes, Labour Members were there through the night, because that was the important time when progress was made. I may have been absent on Third Reading, but I was there on each and every occasion through the night in Committee. It was a momentous piece of legislation, not only for this nation but for the Labour party.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Could we now get on to the Bill that is currently before us? We have all appreciated the history lesson; let us now concentrate on the Bill.

Russell Brown: I apologise, Madam Deputy SpeakerI should know better.
	There are still clear dividing lines in respect of the national minimum wage. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has described the social chapter of European legislation, which includes rights for part-time workers and additional parental leave, as a historic mistake. In the  Financial Times of 28 March this year, he said:
	I think that was a historic mistake Tony Blair made to give up the hard-fought opt-out on the social chapter and I'd like it back...of course it will be difficult to win. But if you have enough resolve...then I believe it is possible.
	While this Government are increasing fairness and prosperity at work, the Tories would scrap the help for working people that Labour has introduced. The shadow Chancellor has heaped praise on the report on economic competitiveness by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), which says that regulation to stop small children working is unnecessary and recommends that Britain tears up the entire framework of employment protection agreed with European partners over the past 10 years. In chapter 6 of Freeing Britain to Compete, produced by the economic competitiveness policy group chaired by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, he says:
	You do not need a regulation to stop chimney sweeps sending small boys up chimneys.
	He goes on:
	If our partners could not be persuaded, we should seek opt outs from the areas of regulation that we think are most damaging...This would include all employment and social regulation.
	This is the 21st century, and we need to ensure that we are being fair in the workplace and fair to individuals.
	I want to deal with a couple of aspects of the Bill. I apologise that I was not here for the start of the debateI was on a Delegated Legislation Committeeso I do not know whether, in his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs referred to the concerns expressed by Age Concern. It welcomes the review of employment law, but it recommends that the Government should use the legislation to outlaw the process of forced retirement by removing the default retirement age of 65 introduced by the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. It maintains that the Government got it wrong on employment rights for those over 65, leaving them the only group without protection from discrimination when it comes to being dismissed. The default retirement age means that older people cannot choose to work beyond the age of 65 unless their employer allows them to do so. They can be forced to retire, if their employer so chooses, without reference to their capability or conduct, without being given a reason and without being able to challenge the dismissal in an employment tribunal.
	Evidence from the United States of America, where mandatory retirement ages are already illegal, suggests that abandoning MRAs in this country could lead to more than 50,000 extra jobs for people over the age of 65. Scrapping mandatory retirement ages would be popular, and Age Concern polling has found that 80 per cent. of people think that there should be no mandatory retirement ages. Businesses are increasingly recognising MRAs as burdensome, fraught with practical difficulties and liable to create confusion for management. The employers of two out of five workers already manage without MRAs. The Employers Forum on Age now takes the view that the future of MRAs is unsustainable. I sincerely hope that Ministers will use the Bill to deal with that issue.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend cites organisations in the private sector, but does he acknowledge, and regret the fact, that among the most bellicose and hard-nosed employers that impose a maximum working age are organisations such as the Royal Mail? It routinely disposes of people who are fit, well, active and who know their areas well; they are lost because of the continuing pressure the organisation is under to downsize its work force.

Russell Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and there is more than one question within it. He outlines the manner in which the Royal Mail deals with some of its work force, especially as they reach retirement age. It is a tragedy that in the 21st century we are forcing people to retire at what is seen as retirement age when, if people are fit and healthy, they want to be out and contributing to business life.

David Taylor: It keeps them fit.

Russell Brown: Yes, fit and healthy, and if they want to make that contribution, they should be allowed to do so.
	My final point was raised by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), who referred to the British National party, and it concerns clause 18, Exclusion or expulsion from trade union for membership of political party. The clause addresses the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on unions' ability to determine their own rules and membership free from unnecessary interference. It relates to the fundamental right of freedom of association, covered by article 11 of the European convention on human rights. The relevant case concerned ASLEF's attempt to expel a member of the BNP.
	The BNP does not exist in my area. I am aware from conversations with other colleagues that it is a despicable organisation, which, in a civilised society, we should not tolerate. I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustrations, as I understand those of many of my colleagues, about some of the myths and nasty literature that it peddles, not only at election times, but continually, thinking that it can make headway in what it regards as the political world.

Charles Walker: When my newspaper informed the BNP organiser in Broxbourne that I had received an implied death threat from a BNP member, his response was that I was being oversensitive to some loose language. Does that not accurately sum up the BNP at every level of its hierarchy?

Russell Brown: I can only agree with the hon. Gentleman; it very much does. He probably could not give a finer example of its attitude.
	The original clause was too restrictive, but it was amended in the other place and it is now even worse. Unions are too vulnerable to claims made by those expelled on the grounds of their membership of a political party, including the BNP, and the clause does not address the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. I know that my union, Unite, finds that unacceptable.
	I again apologise for not being here for the opening speeches by the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson. I hope that the points that I and colleagues have raised will be listened to by the Minister, and perhaps some of the issues in question will be addressed in Committee.

Nadine Dorries: As we are all declaring our interests in trade unions, I suppose I should declare my own. As a trainee nurse, I was a member of the National Union of Public EmployeesI do not think that it even exists any moreand after I qualified I was a member of the Royal College of Nursing. I remember well that in December 1975, as a trainee nurse, we received a pay rise, due to pressure from the unions, that enabled us to eat. The previous monthI started nursing in the Novemberthe paltry amount that we were paid was just about enough to exist on. Although as trainee nurses we were incredibly gratefulI will not go into a history lesson, Madam Deputy SpeakerI do not think that the public purse lost the money as easily as nurses received it. Unfortunately, we all know what happened afterwards.
	In my time, I have appreciated the work of trade unions, but we have reached a point where the unions' demands made in the name of diversity are causing problems with business regulations. It surprises me that in 2008 we are repealing and amending a substantive Act that was introduced and debated in this House in only 2002. Did the Government get it wrong in 2002? Exactly how much are we repealing, and how much is being amended? I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how many regulations fewer there will be as a result of the Bill.
	Today, Nicola Brewer spoke out on how employment law directly impacts on the career progress of women in the workplace. We are beginning to see how the pressure from trade unions on diversity and equality legislation is shooting women in the foot, when it is supposed to help them up the career ladder. I do not think that flexible working and the procedures that employers have had to put in place to assist female employees is wrong. Some of the comments we heard from employers were appallingputting batches of CVs in the bin before they would even interview women who might cause a problem to their businessbut I wonder whether the amount of equality legislation we are imposing on businesses is having an adverse effect. Perhaps we could use a lighter touch and persuade employers by using incentives or by using the tax system, with benefit-in-kind tax relief, instead of using heavy-handed, burdensome legislation. As Nicola Brewer said today, it seems to be having the opposite effect, and rather than imposing regulation on business I think that there is another way of achieving a desirable outcome.
	As someone who ran a business that was all about helping women in the workplace, I do not want us to take a step back. In fact, the issue is about changing the culture in the boardroom and the culture of the people at the top who put women's CVs in the bin and do not employ them because of their gender. The answer is not to hit businesses over the head with a massive regulatory hammer. That is not going to give us the results that we need.
	All regulation is a cost to business. As we know, two thirds of businesses in this country employ fewer than 20 people. Half our GDP comes from small businesses, which feel the cost of regulation more than big corporations do. Having run a small business, I know that owners of small businesses need to maintain their market share, increase their growth, guarantee their employees' security and look for new business. Achieving all those objectives is vital, but when someone has to juggle regulatory reform too, they need additional employees to manage that, which imposes extra cost. If we are going to tinker about with employment regulations again, I would like to see some way of relieving that cost on small businesses and using the Bill to assist them. The Minister will probably talk about that, which is to be welcomedI know that, in principle, we support itbut there may be another way of doing a bit more for small businesses.
	Lord Jones of Birminghamthe famous Digby Jonessaid that the Blair Government were one of the most regulatory-minded Governments. Can the Minister reassure us that the Brown Government are not, or are they the same? Will the Bill reduce the burden of regulation on businesses today, or are we going down the same path of imposing more regulation? The British Chambers of Commerce estimates that Government regulation has cost British business more than 65 billion since 1998. Will the Minister tell us what estimate has been made of the cost of employing people? How much of that 65 billion is directly related to employment costs?
	Many small businesses operate in niche marketsI certainly did: I always thought, What's the point of doing something that somebody else is already doing? It is much more exciting and easier to create jobs if someone can excite by innovating, rather than copying what somebody else is doing. People need the freedom to innovate and the freedom of thought to have ideas and create business, and for that they need to be free from regulation and red tape. It is incredibly difficult for people when all that they can worry about is the administrative process of running their business, which means that they are not free to innovate. Again, the Bill could have done something to help with innovation by freeing up those who run small businesses, who provide half our GDP. Was the Bill a wasted opportunity?
	The Federation of Small Businesses says that many firms are concerned that they are not being taken seriously. They feel that the Government talk to big businesses, but that they no longer talk to small businesses. People who run small businesses have spoken out against the Government, blaming them for not doing enough and for spiralling costs. Again, that is what regulation doesit brings cost with it. The two go hand in hand. In a poll of more than 9,000 businesses, 96 per cent. of owners questioned by the FSB said that they were not satisfied that the Government were taking the right decisions in the interests of small business. Equally, more than 88 per cent. criticised the Government for not doing enough to bring down the rise in business cost.
	The FSB wants the Government to step in and ease the burden. FSB national chairman John Wright has said:
	With the end of a period of relative stability, small business confidence in the government has plummeted in the last couple of years. Employment, tax and fuel policies have left many small firms feeling that their concerns are not being taken seriously enough.

Brian H Donohoe: I wonder whether the hon. Lady realises that there were 18 years of Tory rule between all the post-war regulation and now. As a trade union official, I can tell her that the worst period for unemployment, because of the lack of regulation, was under the previous Tory Government. Surely that is the period on which we should concentrate in this debate.

Nadine Dorries: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, as always. However, we know, as we now enter a recession, that these things are cyclical. I started my business in the 1980s, and it was tremendously successful. Indeed, I know lots of people who did the same. We go through bad patches and good patches. We know that, economically, that is how the cycles work. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not take the point fully, because I am not sure that trade unions have created employment or prevented unemployment, which is more to do with the economic cycle of the time.
	John Wright continued:
	All we see is government consulting big business, with small businesses being left out of the loop. But small businesses produce over half of UK GDP and it is important that their needs are addressed if we are to get through the current economic difficulties.
	We know that those difficulties will get worse. The former Prime Minister, John Major, said yesterday that it feels as though inflation is more like 8 per cent. than the official figure. Nobody I speak to understands how the official figure is what it is, when it costs so much to go to Tesco and so much to fill up the car. We know that things will get more difficult. Small businesses need not more regulation but less, because they are the ones that we will look to, as we always do when the economy enters difficult times.

David Anderson: What in the Bill would the hon. Lady take away? What part of the regulations does she not agree with?

Nadine Dorries: I shall probably answer the hon. Gentleman's question when I conclude. My point now is that I would like to know from the Minister whether the Bill provides less regulation or more. I hope that the Minister will answer that question when he winds up.
	There are new fears in the City. A new survey has found that business leaders in London fear for the competitiveness of the City. The study, conducted by KPMG in partnership with the CBI, found that six out of 10 senior executives believe London's competitiveness is under threat. Richard Reid, the London chairman of KPMG, said that
	after so many promises to reduce damaging red tape, policy-makers have to realise that the burden of unnecessary paperwork is seriously hindering London's success and its ability to just get on and do business in an increasingly competitive world.
	That is exactly why I ask my question. Is there more regulation as a result of the Bill or less?

David Taylor: In a former life I was a freelance accountant for many small businesses. I have a very high regard for the FSB, for the support that it gives. However, the FSB, in urging the lowest possible level of regulationit is quite appropriate for it to do sois not doing what the hon. Lady seems to be doing, namely making a coded appeal for small businesses to be exempt from national minimum wage legislation.

Nadine Dorries: I am not making a coded appeal at all. If I was making such an appeal, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would make it directly. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), if I had been here when the House voted on the minimum wage, I would, as someone with an employer's experience, probably have voted against it, because I have always paid more than the national minimum wage anyway. However, I am aware that there wereand still areunscrupulous employers, and I think that the national minimum wage is a good thing.
	Sometimes there is a cartel of employers who pay only the minimum wage. Sometimes it is difficult for skilled employees who deserve more than the minimum wage to find employment where they live, because a wage ceiling in their area makes it difficult for them to get a salary increase. They cannot move anywhere, because all the employers fix their pay at the minimum wage. The minimum wage has had a detrimental effect on some skilled workers. Indeed, I have some experience of that among my constituents working in the borough of Bedford. They cannot move, because the employers all pay the national minimum wage.

David Taylor: The hon. Lady has decoded her earlier remarks and we are very pleased about that. Is she suggesting a two-tier minimum wage, with the lower tier for unskilled or semi-skilled workers and the higher tier for skilled workers?

Nadine Dorries: Not at all. As I said, I accept that we need a national minimum wage. My daughter works in the hospitality industry, and goodness knows what she would be paid if there was not a national minimum wage. I accept that we need a national minimum wage, but it is not all good. There are those on whom it has a detrimental effect, and they tend to be the more skilled people. They are paid at a rate that does not reflect their ability because there is almost a cartel of employers holding wages down in different areas. Although the minimum wage may have benefited the majority, there are those who are not benefiting and who would be earning more.

Brian H Donohoe: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Nadine Dorries: Actually, I think that I will finish now because I am reaching the end of my comments.
	As I explained, there was no coded message in what I said. Opposition Members support the Bill and we agree with its principle. However, the Government have persistently placed more legislative and regulatory burdens on employers, which has the most detrimental effect on small businesses. It will come as no surprise to the Minister to hear that the Conservative party is committed to reducing regulatory burdens on employers, giving them more power and opportunities in how they run their businesses and encouraging enterprise in all its forms, particularly, I hope, small business. In contrast, the Government have piled extra complexity and burdens on businesses, and I hope that any changes that they make will reduce that burden. If Lord Jones of Birmingham was right that the Blair Government were the most regulatory Government, perhaps this Government can reverse that in the time that they have left and do some good, particularly for small businesses.

David Anderson: I want to focus on three issues in the Bill: the minimum wage, the tribunal system and the ASLEF ruling, and the impact of the BNP.
	A lot has been said about the history of the minimum wage. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown) is leaving, which is sad, because I want to give him another history lesson. More or less everybody now seems proud of the minimum wage and nobody wants to see it done away with. Most people would say that it was one of the finest achievements of the Labour Government in the late 1990s. One of the biggest problems is that we first introduced it in the early 1900s, but it took us 90 years to put it in place. One of the saddest things is that the trade unions themselves opposed the national minimum wage when the union of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) proposed at the TUC in 1983 that we should have one. Many trade unions, including, sadly, the National Union of Mineworkers, which I was a member of, voted against that. Thankfully, the Labour party and, eventually, the trade unions saw the error of their ways, and we did something that we should rightly be proud of. I am glad that the majority of hon. Members see that that was the right thing to do, and we should build on that.
	We should protect those on the minimum wage from rogue employers, and that is rightly built into the Bill. As everyone in the House seems to agree, we should ensure that tips are excluded and that people are paid properly. If a tip is a tip, that is what it isit is not part of people's wages. We should also protect the minimum wage from people such as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who saidI will put my glasses on to read this quote, because that is how seriously I take thisthat the
	minimum wage and other labour market regulation has been the last straw for hard pressed low end industries.
	That seems to accord with what the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire has just said. I would argue with herbut I think that she has a pointwhen she says that some employers have made the minimum wage a ceiling, rather than a floor. That is a problem not with the minimum wage, but with rogue employers taking advantage of it, and that is what should be challenged, not the minimum wage itself.
	I want to focus particularly on the issue of paying people under 21 the rate for the job, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark), and I want to use my personal experience. I started work at 15 as a fitter at the National Coal Board. I served a four-year apprenticeship. At 19, I was trained, capable and safe. I was able to look after a coal face, and the men there could have been killed if I did not do my job properly. It would have been absurd for somebody to say, You can do the job, but we're not going to pay you the rate for the job for another two years because you're too young. We would not do that at the end of somebody's working life, so why should we do it at the beginning if they are capable, safe and properly trained? We should really look at that in some detail, and I ask the Minister to consider it as we make progress with the Bill.
	Another point that was raised earlierI am going to put my glasses on againrelated to dispute resolution. It is clear that the intent in the Bill is to reduce the amount of regulation and litigation, and I would normally welcome that, but the truth is that where dispute resolution works well and where we have good grievance procedures and good disciplinary procedures, which people know and understand, lay members who probably do not understand such things will have internal protection if they are supported by trade unions or bodies such as the citizens advice bureau. My worry, which has been raised with me by constituents who sit as lay members of tribunalsthis has been raised clearly alreadyis that the proposals are about taking them out of the loop and letting people with a legal background have sole responsibility for deciding cases that they might not be qualified to decide, in the sense that they do not have experience of the workplace from the side of the employer or the employee, even though they will have a legal background. That is a real worry, and we should address it. We should ensure that the proposals that we take forward are not about reducing the number of people with real knowledge and experience who have sat on tribunals for many years, but about doing the job properly.
	Finally, I want to come on to the problems with clause 18, which have been raised by the TUC. I understand why the Government feel that they have to come into line with the European Court regulations. It appears that everybody thought that that was fair when the Bill went into the Lords, but the Lords clearly did not think that it was, and they have changed the provisions. It is clear from the TUC brief that many of us have received that the TUC has some major problems with the proposals. One of the main things that I worry about is that we will involve the courts. We should be in no doubt that if the BNP thinks that it can have its day in court, it will not care what it costs or about the legitimacy of its caseit will get up and use the courts of this country as a political platform to argue against the things that we believe in, but which it abhors.
	There is a basic democratic tenet here. Through their own democratic processes, trade unions decide what they believe in. I was proud to be the president of Unison. Through many years of negotiation and democratic debate, the union came forward with a constitution saying that the union supported the rights of gay people, lesbians, black people, disabled people and women. The BNP does not support those rights; it supports the same things that fascists have supported throughout the yearsdiscrediting people, pulling people down, making people feel different and exploiting differences. We should be clear that the BNP is not wanted in the trade union movement and we should work with the TUC and others to ensure that the legislation that we introduce tightens up the expulsion of the BNP. The truth is that we should not even be talking about the legal position on this; the trade unions should be able to set their own rules and say, If you're a fascist, we don't want you.

John McDonnell: In the briefing that my hon. Friend has quoted from, the TUC suggests that Mr. Lee, the BNP member who took action against ASLEF, would have won his case under the Bill, if it goes through. We are therefore in severe danger of legislating in a retrograde way. It is critical that Ministers meet the TUC and others to resolve the matter before we make a fundamental mistake, which would run counter to all that has been said on both sides of the Chamber.

David Anderson: I could not agree more. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) is not in his place, but he put it better than anybody else. It is clear that he faces a challenge and that his life is under threat, but he is still prepared to stand up in the House to say that what these people are doing is wrong and that we should stand against it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is right that we may be over-legislating. We are giving the fascists a second chance that they do not need and should not have. I urge the Minister to do what my hon. Friend has just said: we should get the TUC involved and work with it so that we can have a framework that delivers what we want through the Committee stage of this Billthe right to expel these people from trade unions and to deny them the right of union membership.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson). His final remark was that we might be over-legislating, and that was about the only remark in his speech that I can agree with.
	The presentation of the Bill in the House has more to do with the Government's not wanting to discuss the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. As the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) said, It's all to do with Catholics in by-elections. The Bill has been rushed to the House today because the Government did not want to discuss the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I really think that there is no need to extend the debate to the subject just raised by the hon. Member. We have a Bill before us, so I look forward to hearing him conclude our debate on that Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is just as well that I did not give way to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster), as I would have been even further out of order.
	We have had a good-tempered debate today up to now and we have heard 10 good speeches from both sides of the House. I have quite a lot to say about them and I do not want to detain the House for too long, so I am going to limit the interventions I take. When I have had an opportunity to get properly into my speech, I will give way to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye.
	The Bill started its life in the House of Lords as long ago as 7 January 2008. It is curious, then, to consider why it has taken so long to get here. It comprises 22 clauses and is divided into four sections. Clauses 1 to 7 deal with dispute resolution: clause 4 deals particularly with the determination of proceedings without a hearing; clause 5 with the circumstances in which ACAS is obliged to offer conciliation services; and clause 6 repeals section 18 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Clauses 8 to 14 deal with the national minimum wage: clause 13 excludes cadet force adult volunteers from qualifying for the national minimum wage. Clauses 15 to 17 deal with employment agencies and clause 18 relates to trade unions. I intend to say something about all of those provisions.
	We have heard excellent speeches, not least on the Opposition side from my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries). I was particularly impressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire, as what he said, speaking without notes on the basis of his huge experience in employment tribunals, was enormously beneficial to the House. He proved that the Government's rushed legislation of 2002, introduced by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on the basis of his three-step and increasingly legalistic approach, was subsequently shown by the trade unions and others to be not the best way of proceeding with industrial tribunals. The Bill is welcome in that it starts to put right some of what the Government got wrong in 2002. My hon. Friend, along with the hon. Member for Blaydon and others on the left of the Labour party, demonstrated that the experience of members of employment tribunals counted for a great deal. It is a pity that the Government got this wrong in 2002; perhaps the Bill will begin to restore some of what was lost then.
	I worry about the timetable. As the Minister made clear, consultation on the code will not finish until 24 July, yet under the timetable we are asked to accept later this evening, all stages of the Bill must be concluded by 23 October. For most of that time, the House will be in recess, so it will be difficult for us to get together to discuss what is in the Bill. The timetable makes it very difficult for the House to consider the code, which is one of the key aspects of the Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire alluded to the British Chambers of Commerce, which has conducted many surveys of its members who own small businesses. It calculates that the regulations introduced by the Government since they came to power 1997-98 amount to some 65 billion-worth of costs. She also quoted from the Federation of Small Businesses, which estimated that about 68 per cent. of its members do not employ anybody because they are fearful of employment legislationin other words, they are one-man businesses. The Government should note that most of the employers in the small business sector have to deal with the welter of employment legislation on their own because they cannot afford to employ people to do it for them.
	I will move on to deal with disputes resolution and hearings, along with the three-step approach and Government studies. If the Bill can simplify the way we deal with disputes, and particularly how if clause 7 deals with the enforcement of the award of compensation can be simplified that will be welcome. We have had a good amount of discussion this evening about how best to amend clause 7 to ensure that awards by tribunals can be enforced a little more quickly.
	Clauses 8 to 13 on the national minimum wage have been extensively debated. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne bravely said that if he had been a Member when the national minimum wage legislation had been debated and voted on, he would notwith the experience that he has now gainedhave voted for it. That is probably true for a large number of Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown) asked how he could have debated the national minimum wage in Committee from 4.30 in the afternoon to 1 am the next day and still have been in the same parliamentary day. The answer is, of course, that we remain in the same day until the House adjourns. He may be right that that was one of the longest-ever such Committee sittings.

John McDonnell: I am not making a party political point as I want to reach consensus, but what is the official Opposition's position on the minimum wage for people under 21? Do they support it or are they open to discussion to reach consensus on abolition?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We are still discussing the issue. I understand that there are three different rates according to different ages, but it is a matter that we wish to continue to discuss. Suffice it to say that we support the national minimum wage and its regular updating at least in line with inflation, which is quite a shift for the Conservative party in comparison with our position a few years ago. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not go beyond saying that at this stage.

Michael Jabez Foster: The hon. Gentleman is now recanting the decision originally to vote against the minimum wage and he suggested that little of what my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) said was correctexcept for the point about the British National party. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the BNP has absolutely no place in the trade union movement or, for that matter, in any part of public life in Britain?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which relates to clause 18 on the trade unions. I will be working my way slowly through the Bill and I certainly intend to deal with that issue.

Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that in reflecting on rates of pay for the under-18s, it is important to take into account the new obligations proposed in the Education and Skills Bill? Employers will be required to pay for training to a much greater extent than previously. Should not that also be weighed in the balance?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend that all these costs on employers must be taken into account. If we continue to pile regulations on employers, our country will become less competitive. The same applies to the EU, which has lost 10 per cent. of its world trade in the past 10 years. Some experts estimate that if we continue to impose extra regulations and burdens on industry, we will lose 40 per cent. of world trade in the next 20 years. We need to consider that possibility very seriously. It is not a matter of individual pieces of legislation, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, but rather the aggregate effect of all legislation that impacts on businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said, it is not so much the cost, but the burden of administering the regulations and their continually changing nature that causes the problems, as employers have to keep retraining people on the basis of what the newest legislation means. That is particularly burdensome on small businesses.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the aggregate burden of regulation. He referred earlier, as did the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries), to total costs of 65 billiona figure suggested by the British Chambers of Commerce. However, if we look at the aggregate gross domestic product since the present Government have been in power, that 65 billion represents a little more than 0.5 per cent. of GDP. Is that the sort of burden that would push firms to the wall?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: With great respectand I do have great respect for the hon. GentlemanI do not regard 65 billion as a small sum. I consider it incumbent on any Government to legislate for the minimum amount necessary to ensure that businesses operate properly and employers and employees are treated fairly, and in particular to ensure that employees do not suffer discrimination in the workplace.

Patrick McFadden: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the BCC figure to which he referred includes measures such as increasing disabled access to public transport? Does he consider that to be a burden, or the mark of a civilised society?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I certainly consider it to be the mark to a civilised society. What I do not know, and what the Minister did not say in his intervention on my speech, is how much of that 65 billion relates to the regulations. I suspect that it is not a huge amount, but I stand to be corrected.

Several hon. Members: rose

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I want to make progress, because I have been speaking for a while and I want the Minister to have a chance to catch up.
	I welcome clause 13, which excludes cadet force volunteers from certain obligations that they are currently required to observe. I particularly welcome the clarification about adult volunteers, because there were fears in my constituency about the possibility that adult volunteer drivers would have to pay all sorts of tax and other charges. I also welcome what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne about employment agencies, which perform a valuable function in returning people to work. We want them to operate properly, but I remain to be convinced that the number of rogue employment agencies out there warrants such draconian legislation.
	Clause 18 relates to trade unions and trade union membership, which has been discussed extensively this evening. It is heartening to learn that the left wing of the Labour partythe old socialist partyis still alive and well. We heard it from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), we heard it from the hon. Member for Blaydon, and we heard it from the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway.
	Of course we all want to see trade unions functioning well, but there must be a balance in society between what they do for their members and what they do for the rest of the country. I think most unbiased people would conclude that in the 1970s, when we experienced the winter of discontent, we got the balance wrong. Some would argue about whether the balance was maintained in the other direction during the 1980s and 1990s. I would say that we should be careful not to place too great a burden on businesses, and not to place trade unions above the law in any respect. I do not want to see the country return to the immunity from prosecution that the trade unions enjoyed, in some respects, in the 1970s and before.
	Let me deal with the specific point made by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye about the BNP, which clearly causes a big problem to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne in his own constituency. I am sure that none of us in the House espouses the policies of the BNP, which are abhorrent to many of us.

Charles Walker: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend allow me just one second? I think what I say will help him. Those policies are abhorrent, but what was most abhorrent about what my hon. Friend described was the threatening behaviour towards him in particular. If any organisation says We are watching you, that implies a threat, which is unacceptable in a civilised society. Now I will happily give way to my hon. Friend.

Charles Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words.
	The BNP is no longer a problem in Broxbourne, in the sense that it is no longer a political force. It has been wiped out over the past three years. The real problem is the way in which its members behave and communicate. They do not understand civilised political discourse: their raison d'tre is intimidation and veiled threats of violence. That is the real problem with the BNP, not just in Broxbourne but throughout this country of England that we love so much.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I entirely agree. I think that the problem with the BNP, or at least some of its members, is the fact that they hold such extreme views that they cannot understand why those views, and their behaviour, are not at least accredited by others.

John McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I will in a second, for the last time.
	Let me say gently to the MinisterI think he will face quite a long Committee stage given all the demands made by his hon. Friends, which will need to be debated at great length: I do not know how the Government will meet their timetablethat we have a tradition in this country of not legislating for individual prejudices. That means that he will somehow have to construct a Bill that deals with circumstances rather than the prejudices of individuals and, I suspect, individual parties. I think he will find it quite difficult to achieve that while ensuring that the Bill complies with the European convention on human rights, but I wish him well. He has the sympathy of the whole House, and I am sure that my party will support him on those and, indeed, other aspects of the Bill.

Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: No. I will give way to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, but I will not give way after that.

John McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman depicted a number of us as left-wing or old Labour, when we were simply referring to the installation in British law of International Labour Organisation conventions concerning the right to withdraw one's labour. Will he comment on the statements of his colleague the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), about the need to restrict the right to strike in certain public services? How are the Opposition developing that policy?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Gentleman is trying to deny that he is one of the old socialist brothers, I think that his record will belie that argument and that he is embarking on an uphill struggle. As for the right to restrict strikes in the public sector, I will not go down that route. I have already been upbraided once by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not speaking within the terms of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman may wish to argue the point in Committee. I hope that his party will have the courage to put him on the Committee, because I think he would be a very valuable member of it. That remains to be seen, but I have my doubts.

Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way once more?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: No, because I am up against my deadline. I have taken more than my allotted timealthough there is time.

Michael Jabez Foster: rose

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: All right. I will give way for the last time.

Michael Jabez Foster: That is very generous.
	The hon. Gentleman shares the justified prejudice of us all against the BNP. Does he agree that the trade union movement has a reasonable case, and that the Bill should reflect that by enabling it to expel BNP members?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As I said, if the Government legislate not to deal with individuals' or even individual parties' prejudices, but to specify circumstances, which is what the Bill will have to do in order to comply with the ECHR, I would support clause 18, which would allow unions to expel members who behaved in an unacceptable way. The ASLEF case invoking the ECHR proved the difficulty, and I think the issue needs to be clarified in the light of that case.
	We feel that the Bill contains good measures, but some of its provisions need clarification while others will impose burdens on businesses. I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Committee will wish to examine them in depth and to try to ensure that the Bill emerges from the Committee in a more workable form, certainly in the context of employment tribunals. That is incredibly important, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire pointed out, the increase in the number of tribunal cases since 1998from 29,000 to 130,000proves that there is a huge need for it.
	The Governmentor, rather, the Oppositionwill not vote against the Bill tonight, but we will wish to discuss it further in Committee, and we will reserve our stance on Third Reading. However, we do not think sufficient time has been timetabled in respect of the conclusion of the consultation on the code on 24 July and the Bill's endingunnecessarily we believeby 23 October. That will not give sufficient time for Members to make representations after hearing from their constituents over the summer recess.
	The Prime Minister has said that simplification, clarification and cost saving are all at the heart of the Bill. The Opposition support those principles and we will support those parts of the Bill that aim to achieve them and that seem likely to do so. However, the record of this Government has been to pile complexity and burdens on employers and any changes they make are likely only partially to reduce the burdens they themselves have introduced. We will be watching the Government carefully to see if they reduce the burdens on business.

Malcolm Wicks: I agree with the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) in one respect: the Government will not be voting against this Bill tonight.
	As my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs said, the Employment Bill will make important improvements to key areas of employment law. It will put in place an enforcement framework that provides increased protection for vulnerable workers and reputable businesses, and it will reduce the regulatory burden of resolving disputes at work, to the benefit of both businesses and individuals. This twin approachincreasing protection for the vulnerable while reducing regulatory burdensis crucial to meeting current and future economic challenges in the UK. Since 1997, developments in UK employment policy have been based on achieving a labour market that combines fairness with flexibility.

John McDonnell: To re-establish my credentials as a socialist, may I ask why, after 11 years of this Government, trade unionists still do not have the same rights that they had after Taff Vale in 1906? Why under this Government can we have events such as Gate Gourmet where people can be sacked on a whim's notice, having been undermined by agency workers? The proposed legislation does not even address those issues. How is it that we can wait so long under a Labour Government and yet trade unionists here are still denied the rights that other trade unionists have across Europe?

Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend is wrong on this, as he is on so many matters now, sadly. There has been a significant extension of trade union rights. The Bill is about improving another important aspect of trade union and civil liberties: the national minimum wage, which is the subject to which I shall now turn.
	As an amateur political historian, I found it interesting to hear Conservative Members try to justify why once upon a time they voted against the minimum wage. One Member agonised about what he would have done. Apparently, they now support a national minimum wage. I am reminded

Oliver Heald: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: Not just yet, no, although obviously the hon. Gentleman's party has given way on the national minimum wage, and we should be grateful for that.

Charles Walker: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: I will do so later, as there is plenty of time.
	The Conservative party's position on the national minimum wage, and also more recently Opposition Members joining in the celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the national health service, reminded me of Tony Crosland saying in his book, The Future of Socialismif I can be forgiven for using that wordthat as the Conservative party has accommodated to a modern democracy, it now proudly wears the medals of battles it has lost. That is true for the national minimum wage and the national health service.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: Let me make a little progress.
	We are determined now to go after the minority of employers who do the wrong thing.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way on the comments he has just made?

Malcolm Wicks: Yes; on the battles the hon. Gentleman's party has lost, of course I will give way.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because he is teasing us all the way along the line. Has his party never changed its mind? May I mention clause 4?

Malcolm Wicks: Only in the sense that we now have a far better clause 4, because we believe in improvement and modernisation.

Charles Walker: Will the Minister not accept that the ability to change one's mind is the sign of a mature politician? I understand that he has changed his mind on nuclear energy, for example. Is he not a mature politician?

Malcolm Wicks: Sadly, I am even more mature at least in a chronological senseI do not suggest in any other sensethan the hon. Gentleman. Of course, when the facts, circumstances or evidence changes, one should change one's mind. Just to be accurate in terms of my own position, on civil nuclear I have moved from being nuclear-neutral to being in favour. However, I must not get back into my comfort territory, as I am in temporary employment tonight in talking about employment.  [Interruption.] I do not want this to be an interview.
	I was saying that we are determined now to go after the minority of employers who do the wrong thing by the minimum wage. Of course, the best protection we can offer is to strive to ensure that arrears do not arise in the first place. That is why the Bill strengthens the enforcement framework and increases the deterrent to non-compliance. It will provide greater support to vulnerable workers and fair arrears for the underpaid, and will help to ensure a level playing field for compliant businesses by making it clear both that underpayment is unacceptable and what the consequences will be. Many, including the TUC and the CBI, have welcomed the reform. The CBI has said:
	It will make the obligations and penalties clearer and more straightforward for employers and help ensure that all workers get the pay packet they are entitled to.

Paul Farrelly: Will the Minister give way in the interests of balance?

Malcolm Wicks: I will give way to my hon. Friend in the interests of anything.

Paul Farrelly: Perhaps I can strike a different tone from that of my colleague, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). The Bill touches on agency workers and exploitation in respect of enforcement. Clearly, the CBI and TUC have recently agreed a compromise on the substance of the protection for agency workersI addressed that matter as part of my private Member's Bill last yearand I welcome that. Did the Minister note that neither the Conservative nor the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench team welcomed and supported that compromise tonight?

Malcolm Wicks: I did notice that, but clearly the parties are in a mood to address the evidence and to change, if the argument warrants that.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) to make an intervention about the debate when he has not been involved in it?  [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That sedentary comment was not very helpful. The proceedings that take place do so in this Chamber, and those are the matters to which we shall refer. That was not a point of order, and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) is entitled to intervene.

Malcolm Wicks: I am happy to take interventions. One comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) dealt with the enforcement of the minimum wage. May I remind colleagues, as the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs did at the beginning of the debate, that in November 2006 the then Chancellor announced an increase in the budget for the enforcement and the monitoring of the minimum wage for the next four years, amounting to some 11.6 million of extra enforcement and monitoring money? I hope that hon. Members would agree that that is helpful. The enhanced budget enables us to respond in a highly effective way to the changing scene, through the recruitment of additional staff, more research and better communication. With the increased budget, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs is recruiting an additional 20 people in 2007-08, the majority of whom are front-line enforcement staff, the remainder being part of the minimum wage technical team, which works on supporting the helpline, for example, and inspectors on more complicated cases. We have also significantly increased our publicity budget, maintaining our focus on hard-to-reach groups. That work includes a radio campaign and, indeed, an outreach campaign.

John McDonnell: That matter was covered in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall some weeks ago, when we welcomed the 3 million of additional money, but reflected that at that point in time it had not resulted in an additional number of posts being filled. Vacancies in the department were already being held open, so there has not been the additionality in staffing expected by the then Chancellor of the Exchequernow the Prime Ministerwhen he announced that money. I would welcome a letter from the Minister to the Public and Commercial Services Union, which is the union that has raised these points in the debate and still has not received an adequate response.

Malcolm Wicks: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that there has been a great deal of extra publicity and that the minimum wage bus has been touring in the regions too.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs told the House that 1,649 employers were non-compliant on the minimum wage, yet only 59 enforcement notices and 25 penalty notices had been issued. If the regulations are in place, surely it ought to be possible to get to grips with that huge number of non-compliant employers.

Malcolm Wicks: The emphasis has been on compliance. Now there will be an automatic penalty, and I have mentioned the extra money11.6 millionthat the Chancellor has given the Department for extra enforcement. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) impliedI do not blame him; we all get confused by statisticsthat only 5 to 10 per cent. of employers will get a penalty. For the record, that is not the case. A civil penalty will be imposed in cases in which an enforcement officer identifies that the minimum wage has not been paid correctly to any worker. That contrasts with the current regime, under which a penalty is payable only if an employer fails to comply with an enforcement notice. That supports what I was saying about the emphasis on enforcement. The misunderstanding arises because the 5 to 10 per cent. are those cases in which arrears exceed 5,000, so there is the potential for a Crown court prosecution with unlimited fine.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the certification officer in relation to trade union powers. The certification officer has important powers to remedy failures by trade unions to follow their own rules. He can order a union to put right a breach of its rules, and that order is enforceable in the same way as a court order.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the report by the TUC commission on vulnerable employment, which was issued some weeks ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown) also asked about that. The House may be aware that the vulnerable workers enforcement forum has met over the past year, chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs. It includes representatives from the TUC, the CBI and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, and from enforcement agencies. It has considered several important issues, such as the fear of reporting abuses, the lack of knowledge of to whom complaints should be reported, the co-ordination of enforcement between different Government agencies, and other issues of enforcement.
	The forum considered the issues and heard evidence from many of the bodies that I have mentioned, including citizens advice bureaux, trade unions and representatives of migrant workers and the construction and hospitality industries. It will report in the near future, perhaps before the summer recess. That is not definite, but is one possibility.
	The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, raised the issue of the enforcement of employment tribunal awards. In most cases, such awards should be paid within 42 days of the judgment, unless the respondent decides to appeal the judgment. The exceptions are discrimination and equal pay cases, in which payment is due the day following the judgment. Unpaid awards may be enforced by application to the courts, in the same way as county court judgments, a system that will be streamlined by the provisions of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The Ministry of Justice expects to introduce secondary legislation under the Act by April 2009 which will mean that if an award remains unpaid after 42 days claimants can go straight to enforcement in the county court or the High Court by a simplified route. The current Act separately provides for the tribunal to award compensation for the full financial loss in simple monetary termsfor instance, if credit card or mortgage payments fail because of the action of the employers.
	Research will be undertaken by the Ministry of Justice to clarify how many claimants do not receive their awards, and the contributing factors to the failure. I should also say that my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs will be meeting representatives of the citizens advice bureaux on Wednesday to discuss further the evidence from citizens advice bureaux.

Sarah Teather: I raised all those points in my speech and acknowledged that the Government had made some changes in the 2007 Act. Nevertheless, what the Minister is outlining does not deal with the financial outlay that a claimant must make in order to take a case through the county court or the High Court. The registration issue is not the problem for individuals. I am pleased to hear that the Minister's colleague will meet the citizens advice bureaux this week. I am sure that they will present all the evidence that he needs without further research.

Malcolm Wicks: My colleague looks forward to meeting the citizens advice bureaux, as well as our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice. We are aware of the problem and we need to find out more facts and to tackle it, but I was outlining some of the improvements that there have been.

David Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems with the process is not only the non-payment but the wilful disregard with which some companies treat a former employee? They drag the process out as long as they possibly can, knowing that they will lose, but little can be done because the process has a momentum of its own. That surely is not fair in this day and age.

Malcolm Wicks: I understand that. Indeed, in my own constituency I have had experience of one or two such situations. I understand what my hon. Friend and other colleagues are saying. That is why we are not complacent. We are maintaining the dialogue and, if necessary, we will take further action.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) raised a point, which was touched on by one or two other colleagues, about mariners. That is a complex matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) said. Under current legislation, all resident and non-resident seafarers are entitled to the minimum wage while they are in the UK's internal waters. A seafarer on a UK-registered ship anywhere in the world is entitled to the national minimum wage unless his employment is wholly outside the UK or he is not ordinarily resident in the UK.
	International maritime law, and specifically the right of innocent passage, means that the UK is unable to apply legislation to ships sailing under the flag of another country. That is reciprocal. For example, British ships enjoy that right in the Gulf and when passing close to Saudi Arabia. If the Government were to apply further legislation just to UK flagships they would run the risk of those ships flagging out and diminishing the number of UK ships sailing under the UK flag, something that the Government are committed to preventing. If vessels choose to flag out, not only will the number of UK flagships diminish but the seafarers aboard will miss out on the other entitlements that sailing under the UK flag ensures.
	Understandably, the issue of tips and how they relate to the minimum wage was raised by a number of colleagues. I strongly agree with the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform that tipping is an important issue. I want to assure hon. Members that we are looking carefully at finding a solution. I, like so many others who have spoken, feel that when a tip is given to a waiter in a restaurant or catering establishment, that tip should go to the waiter or waitress and not to the boss or the national company involved.

Russell Brown: In view of the fact that the Minister is saying that the Department is considering the subject, even at this early stagealthough some of us believe that it is somewhat late in comingcan the Department make it known to those out there who are abusing the system that their days are numbered?

Malcolm Wicks: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made his views clear and we have had direct contact with the hospitality industry about that important issue.
	In addition to cracking down on the underpayment of agency workers, we determined that they should be properly protected from abuse. The Bill will allow an appropriate sanction to deal with the small minority of agencies that deliberately flout the law. No business should be allowed to get away with unfairly undercutting legitimate operators by underpaying workers or exploiting vulnerable agency staff. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation, a key industry body, said:
	We welcome this Bill as it aims to crack down on those employers and agencies that are cutting corners and mistreating workers.
	I turn to dispute regulation. I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) on the subject. Alongside tougher enforcement the Bill promotes greater flexibility and reduces burdens on business. The hon. Lady asked me directly whether the Bill reduces regulation. Equally directly, I say yes it does. The reforms to workplace dispute resolution contained in clauses 1 to 7 will encourage employers and employees to find ways that make sense to them to sort out their disputes. In place of rigid statutory requirements that cost employers more than 100 million a year, the ACAS code on discipline and grievance will provide guidance both to employers and employees on the principles of natural justice that enable disputes to be resolved effectively.
	Our reforms enable ACAS conciliation to be even more effective by removing time limitations on when the service can offer help to parties in dispute. To support ACAS, we are investing up to 37 million over the next three years to promote more early conciliation and to improve the ACAS advice line. That will help many people to resolve disputes without the stress and expense of a tribunal hearing.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran spoke about trade union law, and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker)a fellow member of the trade union Unitespoke movingly of his experience of harassment by the foul BNP. All of us who heard his speech were impressed by it. Clause 18 is the only clause in the Bill which deals with trade union law. It appears in the Bill because we are obliged as a matter of policy to amend our law as soon as possible to comply with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. In other words, it is not an option for us to do nothing and leave the law as it is.
	It was predictable that the clause would attract a lot of attention in our debate. The same happened when the Bill was debated in the other place. As Members know, the clause, as originally drafted, provoked great concern from both sides of that House, including from Lord Morris of Handsworth, former general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union. We amended the clause to deal with those concerns. The amendments were heavily influenced by the views expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
	Clause 18 deals with the way that the law balances conflicting human rightsphilosophically and legally a difficult and complex matterprincipally the rights of freedom of association and the right to freedom of political belief. This is difficult territory, and involves some delicate judgments.

Paul Farrelly: I recognise that the territory is difficult, but does my hon. Friend recognise that the TUC still has some concerns about the drafting that has come from the House of Lords? It is concerned that unions are still over-regulated in that respect, so will my hon. Friend be amenable to sensible amendments in Committee?

Malcolm Wicks: We know of the TUC's concerns and no doubt those matters will be discussed in Committee.
	Clause 18 aims to strike a new balance in the law relating to exclusion and expulsion from trade unions on grounds of political party membership. The net effect is to create greater freedom for trade unions to set and apply their own membership rules. However, that greater freedom is qualified by the creation of safeguards to prevent potential abuse. We believe that those safeguards are workable, clear and fully compatible with the way that trade unions run their internal affairs. The safeguards should not, therefore, give rise to mischievous litigation, as the TUC fears. We are also clear that the clause will ensure compliance with the European Court's judgment.

Charles Walker: I agree that people have the right to be members of the BNP; but likewise, unions must have the right to tell members of the BNP, You are not going to be part of our organisation.

Malcolm Wicks: Absolutely right; I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are concerned that removing reference to former membership of a political party would provide an avenue by which individuals with extreme political views could infiltrate a trade union. For example, a BNP member could resign his or her party membership on learning of the union's intention to expel him or her, only to rejoin once the threat of expulsion had passed. The process could continue indefinitely, thus imposing considerable administrative costs on the union and undermining its rights, as determined by the European courts.

Lorely Burt: I understand the point that the Minister is making about trade unions and people who have been past members of an organisation that is incompatible with the aims and objectives of a trade union. However, as I understand the Bill, if someone had been a member of such an organisation in years past, that would prevent them from ever joining a trade union. I find that a little worrying. I do not know what the answer is, and I wonder whether the Minister has an idea.

Malcolm Wicks: I understand the point, but there will be safeguards to ensure that that eventuality does not arise, and common sense will apply. I would also trust in the good sense of a trade union if someone wanted to join who had been a member of one those parties 20 years ago when he or she was a 17-year-old.
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made a thoughtful speech, drawing on his own experience, and asked about the tripartite nature of tribunals. I simply but sincerely want to assure him about the Government's commitment to the three-member panel in all cases where the reasonableness of behaviour is an important element of the tribunal's consideration. Parliament has accepted for many years the case for tribunal chairs to sit alone in certain jurisdictions where that is not a key concern. I hope that we can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point.
	I turn, towards the end of this address[Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] I am encouraged to go further, but I will try to draw my remarks to a conclusion. Again, I return to the speech made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. She talked about her early experience of being supported by her trade unionthe Royal College of Nursingso that, in those dark days, she was able to eat. Nevertheless, she now seems rather sceptical about the legislation that supports the rights of female employees. She did so on the basis of over-burdens, but I noted her concerns. Many hon. Members would say that of course we need to get the balance right, but such things constitute one of the great developments in this country, alongside the move back towards full employment that we have seen.
	Let us not forget that employment is still at a record level in Great Britain. That includes a great advance in female employment, with proper balances, so that people can have the right work-life and work-family balances. An interesting statistic shows that that is now being accepted by women and many employers: the proportion of mothers who change their employer when returning to work has fallen dramatically from 41 per cent. in 2002 to only 14 per cent. in 2007. That shows an acceptance by both the employer and the employee that we are getting the balance right, and it shows that more and more employers are doing the sensible thing of welcoming back, not just for legal reasons, valued female members of staff after they have had their babies.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said that the Bill should give time-off rights to union environmental representatives. As the Minister for Energy, I am aware of that, but this is a fairly new development. The TUC has received support from the union modernisation fund for that purpose.

John McDonnell: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: No, I do not think so.
	I might not have been able to cover all the detailed points that hon. Members have raised because, sadly, time has not allowed me to do so. However, I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill  accordingly  read a Second time.

employment bill  [lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(7) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Employment Bill [ Lords]:
	 Committal 
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	 Proceedings in Public Bill Committee 
	2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 23rd October 2008.
	3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	 Consideration and Third Reading 
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	 Other proceedings 
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed. [Mark Tami.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 122.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Employment Bill  [Ways and Means]

Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connections with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Employment Bill [ Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund. [Mark Tami.]
	 Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put motions 4, 5 and 6 together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) ( Delegated Legislation Committees),

International Development

That the draft International Development Association (Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative) (Amendment) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.
	That the draft International Development Association (Fifteenth Replenishment) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.
	That the draft African Development Fund (Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative) (Amendment) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved. [Mark Tami.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) ( Delegated Legislation Committees),

Representation of the People

That the draft European Parliament (Number of MEPs and Distribution between Electoral Regions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved. [Mark Tami.]
	 Question agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put motions and 8 and 9 together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) ( Delegated Legislation Committees),

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft European Parliament (Number of MEPs and Distribution between Electoral Regions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.

Environmental Protection

That the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved. [Mark Tami.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.  18 ( 1 ) ( Consideration of draft deregulation orders ),

Regulatory Reform

That the draft Legislative Reform (Consumer Credit) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.
	That the draft Legislative Reform (Local Authority Consent Requirements) (England and Wales) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved. [Mark Tami.]
	 Question agreed to.

Transport

Motion made, a nd Question proposed,
	That Mr Lee Scott be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mark Pritchard be added.  [Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Philip Hollobone: As a member of the Transport Committee, I did not want to let this moment pass without paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) for his three years of service on the Committee. He has turned up on a regular basis and contributed throughout, and he will be much missed. However, his replacement, my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), will be a valuable addition to the membership of the Committee, and I am sure that all its members would like to welcome him in due course.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Ilford, North will blush suitably.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Work and Pensions

Ordered,
	That Mark Pritchard be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and John Howell be added.  [Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITIONS

HMRC Work Force Change

Daniel Rogerson: I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of the people of the town of Launceston and the district of North Cornwall, who are concerned about the threat to the HMRC office in the town. The office employs between 50 and 60 members of staff who work on compliance [ Interruption . ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but could hon. Members who are not staying to hear the petition or the remaining business please leave quickly and quietly? It is unfair to the hon. Gentleman, who is trying to be heard.

Daniel Rogerson: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The officers work on compliance and processing of tax returns and do so very efficiently. In a small market town, the office is very significant in providing good-quality jobs. The protest in the town square that I attended and spoke at this morning included not only members of staff and representatives of their union but town councillors, district and county councillors and representatives from the chamber of commerce, who are concerned that those good-quality jobs could be lost from Launceston. I have already met the relevant Minister to raise these concerns but was keen to present this petition on behalf of the residents who have signed it.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the Public and Commercial Services Union and others opposed to the closure of Launceston tax office
	Declares that HMRC should reconsider its proposals to close its Launceston office which saves the country money by identifying fraud and ironing out errors. Further declares that Civil Service jobs in this location should be retained.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges HM Treasury to ensure that the Launceston tax office remains open.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000233]

Electric and Hybrid Cars

Bob Spink: The vast majority of youngsters in Castle Point are decent, hard-working youngsters who worry about their studies and their future, and they care about the environment. Two such youngsters in my constituency have compiled a petition as part of a school project. I congratulate them, and all our other decent youngsters in Castle Point, on their initiative and work. The future certainly belongs to them.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of Andreas Sowa and Sam Lumley of year 9 Castle View school, Canvey Island, residents of Castle Point and others,
	Declares that the use of gas-guzzling petrol and diesel vehicles is helping to damage our environment, and that society should switch to electric and hybrid cars since these are less polluting, cause fewer accidents, with less serious consequences of those accidents because of the generally lower speeds of these cars, might encourage people to walk more, therefore reducing the amount of obesity and are more sustainable, since oil is a depleting asset.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to adopt policies to promote the development, production and use of electric and hybrid cars in order to help to protect our environment and for connected matters, particularly given the importance of this issue to the wider community.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000236]

Planning and Development (Essex)

Bob Spink: This petition highlights the systematic and inappropriate overdevelopment of Castle Point, which I have raised in this House many times, and it concerns residents and myself very much. I congratulate Brian Keeler and Mr. and Mrs. Patel on organising this petition, and I congratulate all who signed it.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of Brian Keeler, Mr. and Mrs. Patel, the residents of Castle Point and others,
	Declares that they object to the proposed development of the area between Nos. 3 to 7 The Close, Benfleet, to construct a building providing two two-bed flats in a two-storey development, which being on a pedestrian pathway only, has no parking spaces, no refuse collection facilities, no access for the development, in either removing spoil or, delivering materials for the building, as these would have to be craned into the site, either from the High street, over existing properties, or by once again utilising the local School lane car park for builders vehicles and mobile crane, once again putting unacceptable pressure on alternative local public parking facilities, which are increasingly inadequate, and that this development would further spoil the conservation area and create unacceptable stress on the existing infrastructure, including roads, schools, rail, doctors, dentists etc.
	Further declares that they urge Councillors to reject this development for these and for many other valid planning reasons, and to ensure that this application is decided by Councillors rather than unelected unaccountable officers, given the importance to the wider community of protecting their unique conservation area.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to press Castle Point borough council, the three Boyce ward councillors and all mainland councillors in particular, to reject this planning application and to substantially protect the unique St Mary's conservation area.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000237]

MCGURK'S BAR BOMBING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.  [Mr.  Watts.]

Michael Connarty: I have asked for this debate on behalf of only one person, who is a relative of the people killed in the McGurk's bar bombing on 4 December 1971Mrs. Eileen Killin. I still refer to her as my aunt, and she is the sister of one of the people who was killed, Phillip Garry. She was Eileen Garry, and my grandmother is also a Garry. Others have contacted me, and I have had conversations with Patricia Irvine, who is still highly traumatised, all these years later. Her mother was killed, and she has written a number of open letters to one of the bombing teama man who admitted that he was part of that teamasking him to explain why he did it, and to tell her who the other three men involved were and the name of the person who planted the bomb. That name has never been put into the public domain. It is only on behalf of Eileen Killin that I speak tonight.
	I would like to put the facts on the record. At 8.45 pm on Saturday 4 December 1971, 15 people died as a result of a bomb explosion at McGurk's bar, 81 to 83 North Queen street, Belfast. I would like to write into the record the names of the innocent victimspeople who had no connection with any paramilitary organisationwho were out for a quiet night with their wives or their friends. The people killed were: Francis Bradley, 62 years old; John Colton, 49 years old; James Francis Cromie, 13 years old; Phillip Garry, my uncle Philly, who was 73 years old; Kathleen Irvine, 54 years old, the mother of Patricia Irvine; Edward Laurence Kane, 29 years old; Thomas Kane, 48 years old; Edward Keenan, 69 years old; Sarah Keenan, 58 years old; Elizabeth Philomena McGurk, 46 years old, the wife of the publican who ran the Tramore bar, normally known as McGurk's bar; Maria McGurk, 14 years of age, the daughter of the McGurks; Thomas McLaughlin, 55 years old; David Milligan, 53 years old; James Patrick Smyth, 58 years old; and Robert Charles Spotswood, 35 years old. Some 16 other people were injured, some of whom carried their injuries to their death, including Mr. McGurk, who died at the end of 2007.
	I would like to say a word about my uncle Philly. When I was a young lad, we had visits to my granny's andpeople from an extended Irish family will know thisthe families gathered together. My uncle Philly was a bit of a character. He was a seaman and would entertain all the kids. To me, it is no surprise to find that he was a school crossing patrolman. I can imagine that he was quite a character even then, at 73 years old. I was at university when I heard that he had been blown up by a bomb in Belfast, where the Garry family livedsome of our family had moved to the north and some had come over to work in the steel mills of Lanarkshire, including the husband of my grandmother, Michael Plunkett.
	Uncle Philly was the kind of character who left a memory, as a happy-go-lucky kind of guy. But there he was, out for his pint on that night with his friends and people out with their family, when what we now know to have happened took place. An Ulster Volunteer Force team, of which Robert Campbell was a member, was sent from a pub in west Belfast with the orders to blow up not McGurk's barthat is the pointbut the Gem bar in the same street. The Gem bar was an IRA pub and was known as oneit was where members of the IRA gathered. When the members of that UVF team got there, they were cowards. They did not try to plant the bomb in a pub that was run by the IRA, so they went to the nearest Catholic pub and bombed innocent people out for a quiet drink.
	I see my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), who used to live in the area. She knew the pub and, she has told me, knew the family.

Geraldine Smith: It really is a small world. When I was very young I went to the local school, St. Patrick's, and knew my hon. Friend's uncle Philly, the school patrolman who used to lead me across the road. My father knew him too, because they used to go to sea together before my hon. Friend's uncle was a patrolman. The McGurks were a very decent and religious family, and everyone was filled with great sadness when that explosion happened.

Michael Connarty: That was the pointMcGurk's bar was not a pub that was involved in the troubles. The bombing happened in '71. The troubles were bubbling up and there had been a few bombings in the Province, but the attack saw the largest loss of life in one bombing at that time.
	As far as I am concerned, the perpetratorsRobert Campbell and his friends, the UVF hit menwere cowards. They did not try to bomb the pub that they were sent to, but, according to the evidence that he gave after his trial, they were told, Don't come back until the job is done. The job was never done. The members of that team never bombed the Gem bar. They bombed a pub full of innocent people, putting the bomb inside a porch, which, as it happens, blew the walls out and roof off, killing the two children playing upstairs and 13 people in the public bar downstairs.
	Let me turn to the role of the Army. I am not involved with any side in this businessaccusations of collusion have flown around, given the fact that no Army patrols were around, and people have asked how that car got to that location in that area without being stopped, and so on. The car was never found when it was abandoned, which is interesting. However, I do not care about that. What I care about is the documents in the report, including the situation reports, which were secret until 30 years thereafter. The Pat Finucane centre submitted those reports, having found them, to the historical inquiries team. It is clear from the reports that there was a travesty involving the Army, which said in the report that the bomb was clearly inside the pub, because five men standing around it were blown to smithereens. The Army said that the bombing was clearly an IRA own goalit said that the bomb was, in effect, in the pub in transit. That was then. The historical inquiries team report says that it was recommended that the Secretary of State answer a question in the House confirming that story.
	That was never done, but, sadly, a former Member of the House, now Lord Kilclooney, said on television and in Stormont that the bomb was an IRA bomb. He said that there was no question that the bombing was a Protestant paramilitary operation. After that, a terrible, scurrilous article appeared in  The Guardian, which had clearly been briefed by the Army, confirming the account in the situation reporta secret document that was never referred to as the sourceand repeating the calumny that those innocent people out for a drink were an IRA team. In fact, the people who claimed responsibilitythe Empire Loyalists who phoned upsaid that they bombed the bar because IRA commanders and units met there, but they knew that to be a lie. Did their operating commander think that they had bombed the Gem bar, courageous soldiers that they were in the fight against the IRA? That possibly is true, because the report was that the pub that was bombed was an IRA hotbed, when it was in fact an innocent place where ordinary people gathered for a quiet night out.
	That calumny ran as the founded story in Ireland until 1977, when Robert Campbell was arrested. I must criticise the historical inquiry's report for saying that he was arrested for bombing McGurk's bar as a result of intelligence, because he was nothe was arrested because he shot a Protestant. He thought that he was going to shoot a Catholic, but he shot a Protestant; the Catholic men in the van he was targeting, who worked in a quarry, escaped. He was arrested because his own people shopped him for killing one of their own. He then asked for McGurk's bar to be taken into account and he admitted his role, saying that what he had done had troubled him ever since. He was a young man at the time of the bombing, but when they arrested him he was a platoon commander in the UVF and had no doubt carried out a number of other crimes in between. He got 20 years, of which he served 16.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Connarty: No, I will not.
	For six years, the approach taken in all the police reportsthis is clear from the historical inquiry team's report of the police reportswas to keep trying to turn the evidence to suggest that the Army report was correct. The reports said things such as that the forensics showed there was no doubt that the bomb had been inside the pub. The forensic evidence did not come out until February, but Dr. Hall, who produced it, said that there was no doubt that the bomb had been placed outside the door or adjacent to itnot in the pub at all. However, the police reports still spread the same story, and every single inquiry in the report shows that the police tried to pin the bombing on the people in the bar to show that they had killed themselves and their fellow citizens from the community. That is unforgivable.
	Another criticism that I have of the historical inquiry's report is that page 9, which discusses the killing of an Army major following the bombing, should not have been included, because it is not relevant. It is as if people are still trying to do the same thingto say that these innocent people were somehow caught up in what happened afterwards, but they had nothing do with it. My uncle Philly and his colleagues and friends had nothing to do with the IRA and other such organisations. If it was not for the Pat Finucane centre, I am not sure whether the historical inquiry's team would ever have seen the secret documents that are now in the public domain and in its report.
	Why am I raising this issue? My aunt Eileen does not want to see the report, which is why I have it. I am the named person because I have raised a question in the House. She does not want to see the report or to remember what happened; she is very old and does not want the trauma of it all, but she does want the peace of mind that goes with knowing that the House recognises that the things that we did as a nationthe way in which we spread malicious gossip about the people who were killed and tried to make it stickwere wrong.
	I do not know whether there can be reconciliation for people such as Patricia Irvine, who wants to know who the man was who got out of the car and placed the bomb. It was not Robert Campbell, but another man who was sitting outside the bar in the back seat. I know that the McLaughlin family are very upset and still accuse people of collusion, and I do not know whether they will ever have reconciliation. However, I am looking for peace and reconciliation.
	Mr. Campbell refuses to be interviewed or to give any evidence and says that he wants the right to see his life out in peace and quiet now that he is in his 70s. I do not believe that that man should have that right; he was a coward and he was part of a cowardly team that killed innocent people. He is living here in England, and it behoves him to tell the families who planted the bomb and who his accomplices were. I do not think that he has paid his debt to society.
	The Secretary of State is here and he said in answer to a question that I asked on 25 June that he personally was sorry for the things that had happened and for the distortions of the truth, but I want slightly more than that. We are clearly talking about a Government-sponsored, defence-sponsored method of operation, and books have been written about it. To suggest that these innocent people did this to themselves, their colleagues, their friends and their families is unforgivable, and the Government must be prepared to apologise publicly. I am disappointed that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is not replying to this debate. He may have the weight to be able to do what needs to be done. If he does not, I will be coming back to ask someone else further up the tree for an apology on behalf of the people who were killed at McGurk's bar.

Paul Goggins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) on his success in obtaining this debate. It is an important topic for him not only because of the wider public interest but also, as he explained, because a member of his familyPhillip Garry, about whom he has spoken so affectionatelywas killed in the indiscriminate and callous bombing of McGurk's bar in 1971, so I want to express at the outset my deepest sympathy to my hon. Friend and members of his wider family circle. I am also conscious that 14 other peopleincluding a 13-year-old child, James Francis Cromiewere killed and 16 were injured. Thirty seven years on, the pain remains real for their families and friends, too. My hon. Friend spoke about the trauma that people still feel. This bombing was, until the terrible bombing in Omagh in August 1998, the largest civilian loss of life in a single incident during the years of the troubles.
	We are discussing tonight one of 363 reports produced so far by Northern Ireland's Historical Enquiries Team. Established in 2005, the HET is part of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but it is operationally independent and staffed by a mix of people, including former detectives from outside Northern Ireland. Just last week, in its latest report, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee expressed themselves
	impressed by the personal commitment, sensitivity and professionalism of the Chief Constable, the Director of HET and the other staff involved in HET.
	The HET is tasked with reviewing all 3,268 deaths that occurred as a result of the troubles between 1968 and 1998, with the twofold aim of striving to bring a measure of resolution to families and ensuring that all investigative and evidential opportunities are subject to thorough and exhaustive examination. Its approach is family centred and in its review of the McGurk's bar bombing, the HET has attempted to answer more than 50 questions from family members. To carry out this work effectively, the HET has developed a five-phase process that includes the collection, assessment and review of all relevant and available material followed by focused reinvestigation and resolution. In this review as in others, the HET accessed witness statements, forensic reports, the original police case papers and intelligence information.
	Every one of the deaths that occurred during the troubles is a tragedy, but each case is also unique and families will have different views and perspectives and different questions and issues of concern. Following the McGurk's bar bombing, the hurt and grief felt by all those directly affected and, indeed, by the wider community was intensified by the inaccurate commentary and reporting that it was the result of a so-called IRA own goal.
	In summary, the HET reached the following conclusions. The bomb was located inside McGurk's bar within a small, enclosed entrance area off Great George's street, but outside the public bar area where the victims and survivors were mainly located. The original target, as my hon. Friend mentioned, was probably the Gem bar rather than McGurk's.
	The Ulster Volunteer Force was responsible for the bombing and in 1978 Robert James Campbell pleaded guilty to 15 counts of murder and was given a life sentence. The HET found no evidence of collusion by the police or security services with the UVF and confirmed that the Royal Ulster Constabulary allocated substantial resources to the original investigation in 1971. Its assessment, however, was that those carrying out the investigation may have attributed more significance to the potential involvement of republican paramilitaries than the balance of evidence supported.
	The HET's report also documents in some detail the media reports of the bombing. It includes the transcript of an interview with an eight-year-old boy, Joseph McClory, who gave a very clear account of how he saw a man place the bomb in the porch of the pub. Even so, there was speculation that one or more of those inside the pub might have been responsible. As my hon. Friend said, the HET report includes a copy of a Ministry of Defence document statingthis is a direct quotation from the document
	the forensic evidence now available shows quite clearly that five of the victims were killed by blastindicating that the explosion must have been inside the bar, and raising a very strong presumption that it was caused by the accidental detonation of a bomb being carried by one of the customersas has seemed likely all along.
	On 7 Decemberthe Tuesday following the explosionsspeaking in a debate at Stormont, the then Minister of State for Home Affairs, John Taylor, now Lord Kilclooney, said
	the evidence of the forensic experts supports the theory that the explosion took place within the confines of the walls of the building.
	He said that the Provisional IRA
	is in retreat and nothing could aid it better at this time if it could inflame Catholic opinion as a result of what occurred at the weekend.
	He called on Roman Catholics
	to think twice before they accept the type of propaganda that is being fed to them about this incident.
	When it came in February 1972, the conclusion of the forensic scientist Dr. Robert Alan Hall was rather different. He concluded that the combined findings, including the pathology reports, did not support the theory that a bomb had exploded close to a group of people within the confines of the bar area, and that the explosion had in fact
	occurred at or about the entrance door from the porch leading off Great George's Street.
	His conclusion supported the evidence of eight-year-old Joseph McClory rather than that of the Minister.
	Although we cannot speak for the Ministers who made statements at the time, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are deeply sorry not just for the appalling suffering and loss of life that occurred at McGurk's bar, but for the extraordinary additional pain caused to both the immediate families and the wider community by the erroneous suggestions made in the immediate aftermath of the explosion about who was responsible. Such perceptions and preconceived ideas should never have been allowed to cloud the actual evidence. My right hon. Friend said at the weekend that
	one of the things politicians have to get much better at is actually taking on their responsibility and saying, I'm sorry.
	I hope that that offers some consolation to my hon. Friend and the others who have asked for an apology.
	I can tell my hon. Friendin addition to what I have said about the work of the HETthat the police ombudsman carries responsibility for investigations when a death has been caused by the actions of a police officer, or when there is information that suggests that a police officer may have acted wrongly. Such cases are referred by the HET, and currently total 64. The police ombudsman also investigates cases in which a family, or a representative of a family, makes a complaint about the handling of a case by the police. The ombudsman is currently investigating 57 such cases, and I am aware that one relates directly to the McGurk's bar bombing. Although the ombudsman's work and reports are completely independent of the Government, I am informed that a report is expected shortly.
	Northern Ireland has moved a long way since the dark days of the troubles. The UVF, which was responsible for the McGurk's pub bombing, has put its arms beyond reachon the way, I hope, to full decommissioning. As the Independent Monitoring Commission has indicated, the Provisional IRA is now firmly committed to the political path, and Sinn Fein is an active partner in policing and in Government. Devolution last May put schools, hospitals and other public services under local control, and I hope that it will soon be possible to hand back policing and justice powers. This week's announcement by Bombardier about its new investment is a further sign of Northern Ireland's growing prosperity, building on long-term political stability.
	However, the murders and conflict that scarred Northern Ireland for 40 years still leave their mark, which is why the work of the Consultative Group on the Past is so important. Trying to find a way of addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland's violent past in a way that does not overshadow the future remains one of the greatest challenges. The group's task is to consult widely to see if there is a consensus on how to proceed. Over the past year the group has met with more than 100 organisations, received 245 written submissions and held seven well-attended public meetings. During this process, it heard a wide range of opinions and experiences about the past and what it means for the present. The consultation period closed in January and the group is now reflecting on what it has heard. As part of its reflections, the group has considered the various mechanisms that are currently in place to deal with the past such as the Police Ombudsman, the public inquiries and the work of the HET. Indeed, during this consultation the group met the HET and some of the many families who have been through the HET process. The thoughts that these families have on this process, and all the other mechanisms in place, will be considered in its final report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are looking forward to receiving that report later in the year. While it is too soon to speculate on what the recommendations will be or how they can best be taken forward, it is important that any recommendations made are workable and capable of commanding widespread public support.
	Lord Eames and Denis Bradleythe group's co-chairsdelivered a speech at the end of May reflecting on some of the many issues raised during their consultation. It is helpful that they recognised publicly the differing views that exist, and that a public debate takes place on some of these very difficult issues.
	In addition to the work of the Consultative Group on the Past, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee published a helpful report only last week. It contains a number of recommendations on dealing with the past, although it also acknowledges the importance of awaiting the report of the Consultative Group on the Past before making definitive decisions.

Mark Durkan: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for giving way, and I fully realise why he is addressing some of the wider issues to do with the past in terms of the broader work of the HET and the Consultative Group on the Past. Returning to the particulars of this debate and McGurk's bar, however, there is a widespread welcome for the spirit of apology offered by the Secretary of State, but he cannot apologise for everybody else. Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful if the Minister who made the offending and grossly misleading statement in the Stormont Parliament came forward and directly apologised, and will he also take steps to ensure that the apology that has come from the Government comes directly from the Ministry of Defence as well, because the Army was clearly involved in spreading this disinformation not only through a Minister at the time, but more generally through the media?

Paul Goggins: I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates that this evening I speak on behalf not only of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself, but of the Government as a whole. As for what others should say or do, that is for them. I cannot speak for them, and neither can my right hon. Friend. I can only say what I see and report what I have read, and that is on the record. We have made our position completely clear.
	The bombing of McGurk's bar was an horrific attack, one of too many that occurred in Northern Ireland during the troubles. The core task of the HET is to help those families most directly affected by such tragic events to receive an explanation and have their questions answered. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk and all the families caught up in this case have been able to take some comfort from the extensive review that has been carried out and the firm conclusions reached.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Ten o'clock.